A revelation?

After a series of debates with passionate theists, I think I have come to the conclusion that there may not be an absolute truth. I have worked under the assumption that truth is absolute for as long as I can remember, and I am still not certain about this conclusion and do not wish to give it up quite yet, though I am heading that way.



This conclusion grew up through a series of "logical discourses" where the theists honestly thought they were debunking my statements. I won't rehash the arguments, but I would see them develop their argument "if a, then b, then c, then conclusion" and I would be left dumfounded that any of those connections could be made by a cognitive entity. Being recently accused of similar acts of fallacy and of eluding their arguments, I realized what was going on. We were very much talking past each other, each side being dumfounded by the other. The second accusation of elusiveness was accurate, as I had felt embarrassed for those making such arguments and felt that replying would be insulting because the errors were so obvious.

If such basic logical inferences can be interpreted by two people in two different ways, then our brains are obviously working in very different manners. At this point, it just seems like debate with the intention of persuasion is pointless. This realization, however, has been freeing. From now on, such entrenched individuals will to me become an object of study and wonder. I know what it's like in my own mind, but I have no clue what it's like in the head these other people. I will do my best to ask questions with the goal of understanding, not of persuading. To be kind, I should say that more persuadable minds are less fascinating, as they, by definition, act in ways that I already understand.