Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
what is a debate - Google Search
I like to have discussions, I do not like to debate to win. I am not debating to win.
Once I have put my argument forward, and someone has opposed my argument, I have no desire to come back and try to convince them that I am right and they are wrong.
Discussion means sharing of knowledge.
Debating means looking from various view points.
Argument means defending ones position, come what may.
I will discuss and debate but I will not argue because I don't feel any need to defend my position.
The site uses a blanket term - debates - and it doesn't need strict definitions. But if you insist, you don't debate. You say above you will but where? Where have you looked at something from various points of views?
I am the one reading through Bahai scripture, through the book about what qualifies a messenger from God which was posted some time ago in one Bahai debate and through another book more of a metaphor which I have forgotten.
I have explained many of the scientific knowledge as wrong or not meaning what they think certain vague passages refer to. I don't recall you ever taking a different point of view?
I also feel no need to put on a public show and convince others of my position.
Your back and forth debates just between me alone would render this statement completely false. There are several years worth.
People who feel secure in their position don't need to convince others. They also don't care what others think of their position.
Being secure in a position about their personal lives may not have a need to convince others. But being secure in beliefs about the supernatural have no bearing on what is actually true.
There are many Mormons and Scientologists who are secure. Doesn't mean they are correct.
Some may truly not care what others think. You however have several years of back and forth so that speaks a different truth. Maybe you have changed your mind?
By contrast, people who go on and on and on and on and on trying to defend their position because they cannot really defend it. If they could defend it, they would not have to keep repeating themselves.
Not really true at all. When Einstein developed relativity scientists didn't believe him. He had to go on and on for years. He was correct. Now he had to go on and on because he was surrounded by people who refused to see the truth in favor of knowledge they were emotionally attached to, despite not having the evidence, they just stuck to their beliefs.
so it's entirely possible that some people may continue to express beliefs unsupported by good evidence and others have to continue to demonstrate the flaws in the logic.
Maybe on a debate forum some people will continue to express beliefs that lack evidence and are unwarranted to hold as true beliefs. Being a debate forum means others may continue to point this out.
Then, using passive aggressive emotional manipulation they will try and create a false narrative that frequent posting equals not defending beliefs or something crazy like that......
What you consider a bad argument is not bad just because 'you' consider it bad. That is only your personal opinion. Simply put, you believe it is a bad argument because you disagree with it. This is all about ego.
That would be true if this strawman argument was true. But it isn't. At all. The arguments you put forward are not bad because I consider them bad. Or because I disagree with them. They are bad because they are anecdotal, unevidenced claims, not supported by any evidence. Claims that are also used to show the Quran is the only true word of Allah and Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Also race supremecy and other oppressive ideologies. "It's true because it says so" works for everything. It should be rejected at all costs and beliefs should be founded on real sound evidence or we will fall prey to any new cult, sometimes dangerous.
What you consider anecdotal evidence and unsupported beliefs are not anecdotal evidence and unsupported beliefs just because 'you' think so. That is only your personal opinion.
No, definitely not. They are anecdotal and unsupported because they are anecdotes and unsupported by anything.
Interestingly you don't take other similar claims as truth yet they are the same. Jesus is right now (look on youtube) in Australia and updating his message. Right now. He said so. It's being written down. There you go. That is your evidence you don't think is anecdotal and unsupported. So if you are consistent you will follow the new Jesus messages. Or do you reject them?
The Messiah: meet the Australian man who says he's Jesus and his followers
I have ready put my beliefs forward and when I can see they have been rejected out of hand there is nothing more to say. Coming back and debating about what we will never agree upon just becomes an pointless argument that leads nowhere. Some people like to argue and some don't. I used to like to argue but not anymore, because long ago I realized that was just my ego needing to win. I don't need to win anymore. I also don’t like to create disharmony and bad feelings by insisting I am right because I don’t need to convince people that I am right and they are wrong. That is egotistical.
Good for you. I don't care about my ego, I care about what is true. True things can be demonstrated. False things cannot be supported except by emotional manipulation and it's dangerous.
I care about understanding how to look at evidence and form beliefs. I also am open to new evidence. Anything that is true will have good evidence.
When my beliefs are rejected I want to know why. If I am holding false beliefs I want to know. It hurts my ego to have to discard beliefs I thought true. I suspect anyone holding religious beliefs would face great ego issues if they suspected their beliefs were not true. Religion defines a persons identity, gives hope of life after death and a spiritual connection to a magic being. And a soul.
I suspect a lot of ego is wrapped up in those beliefs. Just a guess?
But that's great that you are not egotistical. What was being "egotistical"....? Oh, defending your beliefs, right, so that is now egotistical. Defending your beliefs on a debate forum, that is your "egotistical". Huh. Your 39 thousand posts were not defending beliefs? Wow, any more false narratives you want to passively aggressively throw my way?
