Is this website a battleground?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread a theist member accused non-theists of seeing this website as a battleground. ie a place where a war rages between believers and non-believers.

Do you see this website as a battleground? A war?

[JP Cusick]

In another thread a theist member accused non-theists of seeing this website as a battleground. ie a place where a war rages between believers and non-believers.

Do you see this website as a battleground? A war?

I see nothing wrong with the forum as a battleground and as a war and till death do we part.

This is just online on a computer screen and so it is a war of language and brains.

The problems really come when people get too personal, as in both giving out too personal and taking it too personal.

The same is true in a real life violent battlefield where the combatants have to maintain their senses in the heat of bloodshed.

I see the best form of mind control for any debate or discussion is to never view any of it as a competition because competition is a mental poison which destroys our ability to adapt or to see our own errors.

It is not just this forum, because any website is a battleground whenever there is a difference of opinion or belief.

[Zzyzx]

.

The problems really come when people get too personal, as in both giving out too personal and taking it too personal.

I agree 100%

Becoming emotional / personal rather than debating issues is a route to failure. Many people, however, seem to think that getting 'red in the face', hostile, aggressive will 'win' debates. While such tactics may have worked for them in the past during personal arguments, they fail miserably in reasoned debate.

[JP Cusick]

Becoming emotional / personal rather than debating issues is a route to failure. Many people, however, seem to think that getting 'red in the face', hostile, aggressive will 'win' debates. While such tactics may have worked for them in the past during personal arguments, they fail miserably in reasoned debate.

I agree, and I say that some people if not many people do not quite comprehend that they are talking to a computer screen instead of talking to a person, because the emotions are cut out and the "red face" is not seen, and we really need to learn a different way to communicate in an online forum discussion.

Some people will declare that they never said such a thing - when the previous comment is still visible for all to see.

I especially find that sarcasm is not a smart thing to do on a forum because in the written style online it does not carry the sarcastic tone as it does in real life, and so the sarcasm can back fire severely on those who try to use it.

And people take things personal when there is nothing personal to be seen.

In this kind of battleground we must seek to survive, instead of seeking to win or to defeat the other posters.

We must always remember that other people besides the opponent are reading our comments, and so that bigger audience is our better Judge instead of the obnoxious jerk who keeps responding.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JP Cusick]

I agree, and I say that some people if not many people do not quite comprehend that they are talking to a computer screen instead of talking to a person, because the emotions are cut out and the "red face" is not seen, and we really need to learn a different way to communicate in an online forum discussion.

Some people feel that is wrong, and should even be illegal, to have their beliefs challenged. But challenging the assumptions of others is the very nature of learning. Because beliefs can not only be wrong, they can be foolish and even dangerous. And the only tools we have for "adjusting" each other's beliefs are observable facts, and logic. So the question becomes, how well do the observable facts and logic that we are relying on, and using to "adjust" the beliefs of others, actually hold up in a debate? If the other person is consistently providing sound facts and reasonable logic, it may be necessary to consider the nature of our own beliefs.

I especially find that sarcasm is not a smart thing to do on a forum because in the written style online it does not carry the sarcastic tone as it does in real life, and so the sarcasm can back fire severely on those who try to use it.

Unfortunately for me I enjoy using sarcasm and see it as a valuable tool for making a point. The rules of the forum make the use of sarcasm a touchy subject, however.

And people take things personal when there is nothing personal to be seen.

People often take being told that their entire view of reality is meaningless quite personally. Which I understand. But this IS a debate forum, and how is one supposed to express an idea if not by simply saying what one means? If a person dislikes being corrected, they can always seek out an "everyone agrees with me" forum.

In this kind of battleground we must seek to survive, instead of seeking to win or to defeat the other posters.

If one is satisfied that what they have presented corresponds well to provable fact, and conforms well to logic, then they have done what they intended. The rest is up to the audience.

We must always remember that other people besides the opponent are reading our comments, and so that bigger audience is our better Judge instead of the obnoxious jerk who keeps responding.

Exactly. These discussions are all about playing to the audience. Which is why I find it puzzling that so often Christians refuse to engage, or abruptly abandon a discussion. Which only makes it appear that they have conceded defeat. This is the perfect platform to preach the "truth" of Christianity. And the forum comes with built in non believers, many of whom are well versed in scripture. What more could a believer want or ask for? The forum does provide a level playing field however, which many believers seem to bitterly resent.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

No. Although you might say there's a war of words between atheists and theists, I like to go online to discuss the issues sensibly to see if we can arrive at the truth. If the cost of truth is losing that war, then I think that truth is worth the price of defeat.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

I don't look at it this way. What benefit is there to just winning or losing a debate? I'm confident enough in my own intelligence not to need to win battles of wits on the web.

I want to lose the debate. If someone else wins a debate against me, I've had an opportunity to learn something, to correct my own erroneous thinking and I've come that much closer to knowing the truth. If I win, all I've done is confirmed and strengthened what I already believe.

Absolutely beautiful sentiments! I totally agree. What good will it do me to win a debate? It may inflate my ego only to have me end up believing a falsehood.

Jagella