Purpose of Debating - snakes and ladders

[ResearcherTony]

I enjoy a good debate forum for as long as it lasts, that is to say for as long as it still is a true contest of minds battling it out with deep logic and intellectual thoughts.

But over time, good things start to come to an end. I becomes a contest of protecting yourself be not reviling your true beliefs and thoughts.

It turns into a mud fight, with everyone bogged down in the Mire of protectionism of self-esteem at the expense of progressive intellectual thought.

I guess all good things MUST END. All true arguments come to a final conclusion and the debate is truly over but unknown to the new guy just walking into the discussion.

The only thing left is for the forum to transform into a school of logical thought.
To teach the decrepitated fool a thing or two about truth, reality, logic and common sense.

If the forum never becomes a school of higher education and accurate thought, then all is lost and just a waste of time.

Please... Don't waste my time...

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by ResearcherTony]

It is not uncommon for people to join this Forum with lofty self-opinion and with disdain for Forum Rules, Guidelines, conduct, practices, policies, administration, moderating AND members.

If they actually engage in debate they often encounter a dose of reality -- and are soon gone.

This Forum has been active for nearly twelve years, with an average of 175 posts per day, 7800 registered users (77 online at this moment), 250 to 500 guests per day, and threads with thousands or tens of thousands of views (several at or near 150,000 views).

Perhaps some of this escapes the attention of newbies.

[SkyChief]

Before logging on to this forum, I find it useful to temporarily suspend logical/rational thinking in the 4-dimensional physical universe.

Religion is designed to transcend that reality , so lucid observation, the laws of physics, and empirical evidence become irrelevant in any argument about gods. To the believer, his faith will always trump your science and empirical evidence.

We must then be prepared to discuss/debate in abstract terms - except in arguments where believers make false claims about science and/or empirical evidence.

For example, a Christian might claim that all the artifacts relating to Jesus cannot be debunked by science (radio-carbon dating), and you will typically get this type of argument:

"When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours [human's] is fallible."

The fact is, Every single Christian artifact and Holy Relic in existence today has been proven to be fake. Most were fabricated 900 to 1000 years ago as proven by carbon-14 dating.

[Neatras]

We must then be prepared to discuss/debate in abstract terms - except in arguments where believers make false claims about science and/or empirical evidence.

This kind of misdirection is something I rarely have patience for. We live in this reality, we breathe this air, we deserve to discuss what is real more than armchair philosophy. If you're capable of holding that front, I'm grateful. But I don't think I have the fortitude to suspend my physics-based thinking. Because once that's set aside, you're fighting on "their turf" where they've made thousands of inane arguments that have no basis in a physical universe.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 4 by Neatras]

As an armchair philosopher I object to this! There's a time and place for both realism and idealism.