Why do we even bother?

Post Reply New Topic

This section really is an exercise in futility.
Here in PPR, we debate topics which people are very passionate about. Very rarely will anyone here actually be successfully persuaded to change their minds. These heated debates just serve to further entrench our beliefs.

The Christians will not be converted to atheism,
atheists will not "find Jesus",
socialists will not be persuaded to change their minds,
nor will capitalists be convinced that socialism is better.
We just go round and round in circles arguing with brick walls.

So I ask why are we doing this here in this section?

Me? To be honest, I probably get some twisted pleasure in logging out all angry, thinking about how stupid the person I disagree with is. It's like a sick addiction. I suck at debates, these internet arguments get me all twisted up and frustrated, yet I continue to get into them. Foolishly thinking I can convert someone passionate in their opposing position. Then throw up my hands in defeat, calling myself stupid.

Yeah, sometimes there are side topics here that are not of a debating nature that I also enjoy.
The Philosophy part is more exploratory than argumentative.

But The Politics & Religion, always go poorly. No wonder people shy away from those subjects.
There is too much emotional attachment to many peoples beliefs there.

While much of the debating here seems futile, it can be interesting sometimes. I've learned some useful things from the debates e.g. regarding evolution, I've learned new facets about it that I didn't know before. There are some very knowledgeable posters in this forum.

I like to read this stuff; it's interesting.

It can be interesting to see my knowledge of Christianity being tested, seeing new viewpoints I've never dealt with my area. (Well, not as common.)

Consider a debate between two politicians. They are not trying to convert each other. They are trying to convert the interested but uncommitted observors. When you debate passionately with somebody who is equally passionate about the opposite stance then neither of you will convert each other. But that isn't the point of debate. The point is to bring all these diverse points of view to people who are still undecided, often because they haven't yet gathered enough info or who are only weakly committed to a point of view because as yet they haven't been exposed to truly convincing arguments from the opposing position.

Here are two personal examples.

1)I am passionate about evolution. No creationist will be able to sway me with religious arguments and none have been able to muster scientific arguments that would convince me because their science is always wrong (by oversight or design). I participate in these non-religious subsets of evolution threads not in the hopes of convincing the creationist I am debating but rather in the hopes of convincing people who are not passionate about it but respond to scientific arguments. There are a lot of people in that group, which is why creationists came up with (pseudo) scientific arguments in the first place rather than relying entirely on religion.

2)I was raised in a strongly anti-gun culture. So my anti-gun stance was more cultural reflex than passion. My only exposure to the pro-gun stance was NRA ads and those relied cultural arguments that didn't convince me. Unlike evolution threads (about which I am passionate), I don't participate in gun control/rights threads because I'm not passionate. Instead I just read those to see what each side has to say. Although I'm not passionately anti-gun, I was raised in that culture so it's the lens I view the arguments through. My lack of passion allowed me to read more objectively than I otherwise would (if, say, a family member had been shot). Since my anti-gun stance was cultural rather than visceral, Dox47's rational arguments were able to cut through my bias and get me to see the pro-gun side more rationally.

People who are passionate about a topic will never convince people equally passionate in the opposite direction. But they will convince the undecided or only weakly committed.

I actually find many of the discussions in PPR quite educational - not with respect to the issues beings discussed, of course, but with respect to the psychology of people using/misusing arguments to defend their position and attack the positions of others.

Rationalization and ad hoc hypothesizing are particularly popular tools of the trade, but the list is long.

In fact, I think 99 percent of PPR content can be covered in the following link:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language

I guess I just don't get the point of debate.
I find it frustrating. I get upset too easily and want to lash out with hostility.
When I debate, my focus is solely on the other person, not the audience.

I probably shouldn't even get involved, but I keep burning my hand on that hot stove.
Debate is for the verbally skilled, emotionally unattached.

When I first posted on this forum I had little to know understanding of philosophy. I even had to ask for clarification when some one described an argument of mine "a strawman". Debating on here has allowed me to refine my views and greatly expand my understanding of the issues I was debating. As to no one ever changes their entrenched opinion via these debates, I can personally attest that this is a false assumption. After a protracted debate with Orwell on the subject of freedom of speech I came to the conclusion that his position was indeed correct and completely buried my contention that limited censorship was vital.

I think you need to give up any ideas of trying to convince anyone of anything, and view posting here as something you do for fun, a way of sharpening your writing/arguing skills, a way of testing your ideas against those of others, etc, or you'll quickly find yourself frustrated and angry.

I agree that it's not all entirely useless, but really, the PPR section exists, because people do want to debate this sort of stuff, whether it's pointless or not. It gives them a place to do that. So the PPR section would be useful even if the content in it was not.

Same reason people here argue politics at the local cafés over coffee.
It can be educational and fun.Maybe you won't change opinions,but you can understand where they come from better.
The closest friend I have is totally anti-gun,my opinion is different.We've had some really good discussions over this with beer.We have never changed each other's minds,but I think we enjoy the challenge.I didn't even get mad when he called me a conservative communist.I thought it was funny as hell.I have no idea where he got that,must have been the beer talking

It's not pointless at all. You really do learn a lot, and sometimes I think it's more valuable when you end up learning more about your own position than you necessarily do about another. While I've certainly not converted to atheism, I can say I'm a lot more understanding than I used to be.

I wish I had more time to spend on atheism vs. Christianity discussions, but I've been extraordinarily busy. I'll likely be spending more time in the art and music forum in the relatively near future.

We all have our reasons
here's mine
http://zenpencils.com/comic/carl-sagan- ... this-life/

My hope is that we can get more and more people to live like this and gradually make the world that much nicer

I learn a lot from these debates, watching people test their opinions against each other to see which ones withstand scrutiny. In addition to gaining relevant knowledge on a given topic, observers can see how different ways of arguing a point can affect the responses from people with opposing views. I think it's brilliant.

You may not always change another person's point of view – that's hardly unusual. Other times, you actually can change people's opinions: just think of how much public opinion on same-sex marriage has changed within the last ten years. And sometimes you end up planting an idea in someone's mind that, over time, starts to change their outlook on an issue.