Value of Debating

From my experience in debating religion in an online forum, in every single discussion of this nature there would be at least one person who posts long angry posts about “who cares?!” and about how we should just let people believe what they want to believe. These people are not interested in responding to refutations of their logic because they didn't care in the first place. But I hope the reader cares so I’d like to describe my reasons for debating, apart from the fact that beliefs inform our actions, etc.

First we need to understand that debates should not be contests ideally. How does one “win” a debate? If by winning it means being the person who comes up with the most valid reason and evidence, I think I basically almost take the place of the winner. Is winning the debate being the person that convinces the opponent to side with them? Then let me start by asking, when was the last time any debate of any kind directly changed a person’s beliefs on the spot? Basically never. With that out of the way, let us tear down all debates ever. Let’s start with debates among presidential nominees. Maybe asking the correct questions will start a person on a path where they eventually arrive at a right answer. We don’t know if that’s the case. Now, people can change their minds, just not right away. Rarely is the change ever immediate. There are theists out there who are very isolated from people with differing points of view. There are theists who don’t know the arguments posted by atheists… many don’t even know what atheism is. If I can get people to question their beliefs, then something good is taking place. It doesn’t matter if they change their side. The very act of questioning things, the act of skeptical inquiry, of understanding more clearly what’s going on, that is by itself a good thing. Thinking beats not thinking. And in debates you have to think. If I can get a Christian to turn atheist, kewl. But if I can get them to actually read their own Bible and understand their own religion even if that means they’ll continue to cling onto it, I still find that better than when we started. The act of debating activates people’s wish to win a debate. If you look at places like Europe which now beats America in oh-so-many things, debating isn’t a dick move. Complete strangers would hash out issues over a coffee table instead of sitting alone with their Macbooks pretending to write a book. Because people want to win debates, they need to be informed. To be informed is not enough; developing critical thinking skills is required, and that my friends, is beneficial to not just the person but to society as a whole.

Hell, even if people don’t change their minds, does it not occur to people that the never-ending search to verify what beliefs they have are true is considered noble? We can do this by discussing ideas with people who disagree. We can categorize, sort, link together information we have in our heads. I have an entire book’s worth of things tied to religion in my head. What better way to ensure your reasoning is sound than to expose them to people who will try to prove you wrong? It’s like proofreading but even better. Wasn’t America founded upon the idea democracy and the informed decision, of a constant clash of ideas and debate? I learn new things as I go along. Trust me, I wrote a book. I’ve got lots of info locked up inside my noggin’ here. But I do get new info that come in from different people with different perspectives on this whole issue. As such I actually have more content I wish to pursue. Further still I wish to defend as often as I can, what atheism is and what agnostic atheism is. I dislike people misusing the term, and people who stereotype atheists, etc.

There was a time, when I lost a debate on religious matters. I didn't admit I was wrong at first but that stayed with me throughout the time I was looking at more and more evidence until I recognized I was wrong. I lost contact with the person who proved me wrong, I never got to tell him I was wrong. But at least I changed my mind with incoming evidence. So there at least, is an exception to your rule. If you wished to argue, at the start, that debates of this sort means changing fundamental belief systems, then sure. But if you wish to argue still, that necessarily means nobody will ever change their opinions, you can't possibly know that. The very fact that fundamental belief systems are deeply rooted and fiercely defended means it takes time to process and recognize what's going on. And even more importantly, it means rarely will the person who realizes they are wrong will openly declare themself a loser.

So in short if you think dialogue is bad, then don't be a part of it. But there are those among us who seek out the dialogue because we find it worthwhile for a multitude of reasons. And if both sides feels the same way, there's no harm in a debate. Are such threads about religion really useless in a forum among random threads such as “rate my outfit”? The very definition of a forum is “a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged”. Even IF debate is useless, don’t tell me you never do anything useless.

People are more likely to be open to other possibilities or answers in topics they don’t take as seriously. But in an effort to be as rational a person I can be, I need to try to push that emotion aside and stick to reason and evidence. And the things we take seriously are often the things that most need changing if they are wrong, am I correct? Now, we all have our own opinions on matters of religion and some people don't want to take part. That's not a problem. I don't go to random strangers on the street wearing a cross to tell them how misguided I think they are. I discuss this stuff with people who seek out a debate. The flip side is, I don't go to Anime Threads and tell them how boring and useless it is to talk about anime characters. I understand it's not my cup of tea so I leave it be. This is a matter of preference. On the other hand, people drop posts about how they hate religion discussions and how futile they are. If for some reason you found my initial reply to be lacking, so what, if you think they are useless, then leave it for people who enjoy it to get into it. Even if I grant that most religion discussions turn into hatefests, does that mean all of them turn into hate fests? No, it means then, that you have some diamonds in the rough. People debate about politics fiercely. And people have gotten pretty fired up over an Intel vs AMD debate, personal experience. It's not a reason to deny all other people from having debates because some get out of hand... to me that just means I need to look harder for those conversations worth having. And when I find it, all the better. And how do we attempt to fix this? By discussion with people who volunteer to jump into the discussion, not by ducking the issue forever and ever. And to some extent it's also an interest, which is removed from the notion that all debates are only about finding truth. Yes, more investment is often made into religion but not always. There are casual theists who barely understand or care about their own religion, yet rebuke those who challenge beliefs. So a large part of it is due to the culture. Culture has a huge impact on the way we look at things, which we often don't want to admit. The hard topics are harder to talk about but often more rewarding and more important to talk about in the first place. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I also hope you understand, there are people who think as I do when it comes to debates.

You don’t have to be a painter to enjoy paintings. You don’t have to be an artist to enjoy music. Why do you have to be a scientist to appreciate science? Why must you be an angry atheist to appreciate a debate?