What's the point?

[Brian37]

You have just figured out why my posts regarding religion are mostly snarky one-liners. Stick around long enough, and you see the same old debates get recycled. As you have noticed, however, the real kicker is the debates tend to be two people talking at each other, instead of an actual exchange of ideas.

Just look what happens when you're around as long as Min. has been here.

Right. Fuck off!

But seriously, no amount of internet arguing is going to dissuade some asshole who believes in an invisible sky-daddy who loves him and will punish all the people he hates for all eternity that his entire life is a charade. Not going to happen.

I merely enjoy the freedom to tell them directly that their god is a load of shit and haven't gotten tired of it yet.

The best that can be hoped for is that a seed of doubt will be planted and from there it has to grow on its own. Numbskulls like G-C and Waldork are hopeless cases yet.... why do they keep coming back to be ridiculed. I put it down to a martyrdom complex.

Exactly. I get tired of walking down the long Yellow Brick Road that starts out with a naked assertion in the first place. How much of a comic book do you have to read before you say "BULLSHIT"?

[Minimalist]

You have to make your own fun in life, Brian.

I enjoy shitting on them and their holy delusions. It goes no deeper than that.

Once you give up on the idea that you can change those assholes it gets a lot easier.

If someone wants to have a serious historical or archaeological discussion I'm all over it. But "my god has a bigger dick than your god" discussions? Nah, those are for my personal amusement.

[Brian37]

I'm sorry that so many of you feel like this place has noting more to offer but overused and repeated discussions.

Here's my two cents: I don't come here for the debates, especially the religious ones. I'm here because of Lilly's crazy threads, because of Orogenicman's pictures of the universe, because of TGAC's news updates, because of Whateverist's photos of his garden and of Heidi Rose and Fletcher, because of Apo's and Stimbo's eloquence and because of the new members, who are entirely new to all this. I'm here because of my friends.

More than anything it is a place to hang out. People have different reasons for coming here. I don't think it is ever wasted time to do your own thing.

[Angrboda]

I see several different aspects to this.

First, even if we have an ideal of what rational discussion should be, or what we should derive from it, these expectations and ideals seem rather far removed from what often drives debaters in these discussions. While rationalism may be a beneficial model or goal, it isn't what drives participation, at least not from my perspective. More mundane things like anger, frustration, desire (as in ego gratification), and so on, these are what drive the intense participation in these debates. Sometimes it's ideals. But what strikes me is, these responses are likely unproductive misfirings of social behaviors which, in their appropriate context are evolutionarily beneficial. Sartre has written that anger is the attempt to achieve what cannot be achieved by normal means, by way of magical means (the attempt to forge a path where no path exists). And the drive to debate, I think, is somewhat similar; it is our social brains' attempt to achieve something in the current context which would have made more sense in an original, evolutionary context. Cohesiveness and agreement is incredibly beneficial in family groups, sexual pairs, and small groups; it's less important on a global scale. But the circuits in our brains which fire when the cues that trigger the "social cohesion" or "mate competition" circuits are given, are also activated in contexts far removed from the situations in which such behaviors are more instrumentally useful. It reminds me of one of the current theories about why we have religion, religious beliefs, and religious behaviors. The neurological or side-effect theory postulates that the behaviors and thoughts that make up religion are composed of other modules of the mind which evolved to serve other purposes; we "imagine" there is a mind inside that human shaped object, even though we don't visually see a mind — this ability to model unseen minds in a human body allows us to conceptualize the idea of unseen mental phenomena in other locations: a thunder cloud, a statue, the sun. So in a way, the drive to argue and debate these things parallels the [hypothesized] source of religious belief: behaviors and components of mind/cognition which serve an evolutionary role in one context and in a certain form, become either excesses and waste, or serve some novel function, when triggered by situations where the original evolutionary instrumental utility of the behavior is not present.

That's one aspect of these debates that interests me, and it's like the elephant in the middle of the room: the more you tell yourself to ignore these cues, the harder it is to do so. Because the emotions are real. The purpose of the emotions may not align properly with why these emotional responses developed, but the emotions are here, and you have to deal with them. I tend to just go with the flow, myself (see below). I'm reminded of something someone at a Buddhist reading circle once said. He remarked that when he was younger that he had watched a scary movie, and how he thought, as a Buddhist, that feeding the mind scary experiences was bound to have negative effects, and that as a Buddhist, it would be prudent for him to avoid such stimulation. My immediate thought was that absent such stimulation, you'll never learn how to manage such emotional content, so avoiding such stimulii makes you weaker, not stronger. And I think that my time on the forum has yielded more benefit in terms of improving me, my skills, teaching me new things, gaining new insights and so on, rather than any possible benefit in terms of changing the minds of adversaries. Moreover, my engaging, and watching others engage, allows them and myself to learn from each other.

Then there's a third aspect. Perhaps it's part of my personality, but it's not uncommon that the substance of a debate will become a temporary obsession with me. Inigo's arguments about morality and ethics didn't interest me explicitly, as I'm not knowledgeable about ethics and don't consider it an area I want to concentrate on; however, as I went about my day, I found myself turning the various parts of his argument over in my mind, analyzing it. It's perhaps impossible for me to think about something without analyzing it. But regardless, the subject occupied my thoughts unbidden. And there are times when someone or some argument will frustrate me to where I find myself pre-occupied thinking about it. However, many times when that happens, I'll flip into a different mode. I'll stop thinking about how to resolve my feelings by manipulating the discussion or things external, and turn it back on myself and ask what is it inside of me that is causing me to react in this way? As a Taoist, someone invested in virtue ethics, and as someone for whom monitoring the causes of my behavior is an essential skill (chronic mental illness), I find doing this both fairly natural, as well as very powerful. As long as you are simply reacting*, you are controlled by the other; when you can get under that and discover how to regain control, you've accomplished something more important than a debate victory. I look upon these experiences and the fruits of such reflections as important opportunities to learn about myself, and to improve who I am.

Or, as Lao Tzu wrote: "Mastering others requires force; mastering the self takes strength."

[The Reality Salesman01]

I'm sorry that so many of you feel like this place has noting more to offer but overused and repeated discussions.

Here's my two cents: I don't come here for the debates, especially the religious ones. I'm here because of Lilly's crazy threads, because of Orogenicman's pictures of the universe, because of TGAC's news updates, because of Whateverist's photos of his garden and of Heidi Rose and Fletcher, because of Apo's and Stimbo's eloquence and because of the new members, who are entirely new to all this. I'm here because of my friends.

Well said. It seems as though my post has been misunderstood. Those are all fantastic things to cherish in a forum, and I don't for a second wish to discredit any of them. I was just venting about a specific thing that bothered me. I did not mean to suggest that there aren't ANY good things on this forum, only that I wish the debates could be more constructive at times. Nothing more. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I assure you, it was not at all my intention to do so.

---

I see several different aspects to this...


Then there's a third aspect. Perhaps it's part of my personality, but it's not uncommon that the substance of a debate will become a temporary obsession with me. Inigo's arguments about morality and ethics didn't interest me explicitly, as I'm not knowledgeable about ethics and don't consider it an area I want to concentrate on; however, as I went about my day, I found myself turning the various parts of his argument over in my mind, analyzing it. It's perhaps impossible for me to think about something without analyzing it. But regardless, the subject occupied my thoughts unbidden. And there are times when someone or some argument will frustrate me to where I find myself pre-occupied thinking about it. However, many times when that happens, I'll flip into a different mode. I'll stop thinking about how to resolve my feelings by manipulating the discussion or things external, and turn it back on myself and ask what is it inside of me that is causing me to react in this way? As a Taoist, someone invested in virtue ethics, and as someone for whom monitoring the causes of my behavior is an essential skill (chronic mental illness), I find doing this both fairly natural, as well as very powerful. As long as you are simply reacting*, you are controlled by the other; when you can get under that and discover how to regain control, you've accomplished something more important than a debate victory. I look upon these experiences and the fruits of such reflections as important opportunities to learn about myself, and to improve who I am.

Or, as Lao Tzu wrote: "Mastering others requires force; mastering the self takes strength."

Thanks for providing your perspective! This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to read. I found the latter part above to be of particular interest to me. I too, at times, become obsessed with certain arguments at times. I have found myself waking up in the middle of the night before, and having an AH-HA!-moment about a specific thought I couldn't accept, but had difficulty putting my finger on just why. I am consumed with my ideas and opinions sometimes, and this can be a wonderful place to line them all up for examination by others. There's something quite satisfying about having an idea validated by others that struggle with the same thirst for understanding, and it can, at times, be the only cure for such intellectual constraints. I even started wondering if I have something wrong with me. What is it inside me that makes me so addicted to arguing? Why is it so hard for me to turn off my mind when it comes to things I am unwilling to agree with? I see errors in thought processes in my day to day life, and it drives me crazy! So many things could be simplified if everyone would just take a second to examine what they believe to be a good idea, and ask themselves, "Why do I think that?", and be prepared to change their minds if they cannot produce a valid answer to such a question. Religous or not! So many processes and policies could be simplified if the makers and instruments of them were more willing to critically challenge them. If only society was as concerned with the importance of analyzing thoughts and ideas as they were with practicing religion, what a more productive world this would be. I can't seem to turn it off, and without a place like this available to me, I wonder what I would do with myself. Thanks for listening. Have a wonderful day!

For all the Americans...Happy 4th!

[Brian37]

I came here for the chicks and the booze, unfortunately, struck out on both counts.

[thesummerqueen]

You missed most of the chicks while we were single and posting dirty pictures.

As for Texas -


When the repetition gets too much, leave. Seriously. It's amazing how much shit washes away when you leave for weeks or months and come back...even if it's to the same old thing. It will not feel QUITE the same, because hopefully in that time you will have changed, and it won't faze you so much and you can ignore the SSDD...it's been a while since I met a theist who altered my understanding of the way they think. They're few and far between. Don't go looking for it in every one you meet.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You missed most of the chicks while we were single and posting dirty pictures.

As for Texas -


When the repetition gets too much, leave. Seriously. It's amazing how much shit washes away when you leave for weeks or months and come back...even if it's to the same old thing. It will not feel QUITE the same, because hopefully in that time you will have changed, and it won't faze you so much and you can ignore the SSDD...it's been a while since I met a theist who altered my understanding of the way they think. They're few and far between. Don't go looking for it in every one you meet.

I couldn't agree more. I noticed that leaving did help. I've had so much to do lately and lots of time to think. For a while I've been exploring other outlets through which to expend my thoughts. Perhaps that's why the urge to post a rant on here hasn't been as strong lately. But alas, here I am! I do love this particular site, I just get frustrated with some of the responses I hear. Taking a more withdrawn approach may be beneficial to avoid such annoyances, but I think it's more fun to toss around Ad Hominems and other fallacies in exchange for the ones they offer me. When in Rome...Lol.

[thesummerqueen]

Not giving a shit helps.

It's unfortunate for the people who do, because I'm sure I'm frustrating when they actually do give a shit, but I'm letting y'all know here and now that when I make a flippant answer about religion or pseudoscience, it's not because I'm trying to be mean to you personally (unless that's specifically stated)...it's because I've probably already heard your shit a few times (or more) and being flippant is the only way I can deal with the repetitive frustration of someone having asked a question which has been answered multiple times on multiple places on the net.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Not giving a shit helps.

It's unfortunate for the people who do, because I'm sure I'm frustrating when they actually do give a shit, but I'm letting y'all know here and now that when I make a flippant answer about religion or pseudoscience, it's not because I'm trying to be mean to you personally (unless that's specifically stated)...it's because I've probably already heard your shit a few times (or more) and being flippant is the only way I can deal with the repetitive frustration of someone having asked a question which has been answered multiple times on multiple places on the net.

Word!