What's the point?

[Tonus]

Not giving a shit helps.

Or knowing when not to.

Some folks are willing to give and take during a discussion, or provide an interesting perspective on some old topics. Others will hold to a position no matter what, and once you understand how they approach a particular issue or question, there's little reason to debate it any further. Especially if they deal with tough questions in a dishonest or incoherent manner.

To me, the question is whether or not I can learn something new from discussing or debating with a particular person. I tend not to bother with people that I find to be a waste of time and effort, and sometimes I'll either just snipe at them or outright ridicule them. Occasionally I may have a question based on something they've said, but usually the answer reminds me why I stopped taking them seriously.

[Ben Davis]

I've been gone for a while, and just wanted to come back and say..HI! I guess after reading the same arguments and the same fallacies. These debates have left me a bit unsatisfied. A debate should only be engaged if both sides are dedicated to following the rules of logic, and if after ones arguments have been shown to be fallacious, it should not occur again. This is not the case though. It seems that while some claim to be champions of logic, they are actually more concerned with being repeat offenders of trampling on it. My patience is dwindling, and the reward of constructive discourse seems more and more unlikely as chances of such a thing falsely present themselves. This is not an attack on Theists. Atheists of course, are also guilty of it. However, given the nature of the usual debates around here, Theists just seem to be more vulnerable to it on the whole. Just curious if anyone else has thought this and what epiphanies it has inspired in you. It’s left me odiously cynical.

For me, there are two important factors at play:

1. to have the public debates for the sake of the audience. It's true to say that neither side in a debate is likely to change their position during the debate but the main impact of each point and rebuttal is felt by the audience. So I don't mind repeating myself because each time I make my points, more people get to see them and subsequently reflect on their worth (the points, not the people!). That reflection is what is most likely to cause change.

2. for the sake of intellectual exercise. By debating, I'm able to hold my thoughts/opinions/analyses/conclusions up to public scrutiny and let people have at them. The chance to do the same to someone else's arguments is always fun! Repeat discussions also give all parties the opportunity to come up with something new.

[evenheathen]

@ Ben Davis

Exactly. The true benefit of these mundane debates is not to the debaters themselves, but to the audience. There are many guests that come to read what is discussed, many of whom may be struggling with doubt about their faith and are looking for a voice of reason. By exposing the fallacies and illogical arguments of the religious we are helping to bring others to be able to think more critically about their own views.