The āuseā of ādebateā is rooted in the rule of thumb that there are, in any given forum on average, 100x more people who are lurkers than participants. Certainly never less than 10x. And these people are often looking for a way out of the thicket of theism. I believe it helps them (also would have helped me back in the day) to see that there are sound reasons to not uncritically accept religious ideation, and what those reasons are.
I doubt that anyone here engages in those kinds of conversations because they are under the illusion they are going to Change Minds.
Although I have seen on rare occasions, people actually change their minds. On another forum was a woman who was a rootin-tootin fundamentalist out to save the world and over many years became a rootin-tootin atheist out to save the world and finally, just a skeptic and realist once she let go of her need to Save the World.
No one is going to save the world, we are just going to use what influence we have to imperfectly change a few minds and hopefully have a net positive impact (or at least be able to rationalize that we have). Real positive change is a fragile long game.
To my understanding, Theists mainly come onto here in the attempts to convert Atheists. They donāt join to give up their Christianity. Itās all about getting us to drink the Kool-Aid. And they donāt care about evidence. To them, their holy book is evidence and no can tell them any different.
I donāt believe that.
There are a lot of folks who read the posts here who never participate in the discussion. Why do you āspose theyāre reading this stuff?
I suspect some portion of the lurkers (as well as some portion of the theist posters) come here because they are having doubts about their theism. These discussions are fodder for thought. Could it be that they are searching for information to use as a tool to determine if their belief holds water?
In my book, thatās a win.
Again thereās a rule of thumb that there are MANY MANY more lurkers than participants. Lurkers are completely different dynamic. This is known as the 90-9-1 rule. 90% are ālurkersā who donāt post but just read, 9% are occasional contributors, and 1% produces the vast majority of actual content.
Remember that lurkers donāt even need to be registered members to access the debate area. Itās possible that the moderators couldnāt even tell us an exact number of unique persons reading through the site for that reason. But as CyberLN rightly points out, they can read through all the point/counterpoint at their leisure and really consider it.
I would insert: Theist leaves, either voluntarily or otherwise, but undeterred Atheists continue the debate by quoting and refuting the departed Theist.
This is true, and though the debates themselves are not formal, with an argument being adjudged to have won at the end, we can all still learn from them, theists and atheists alike. Just because I find an argument uncompelling or poorly reasoned, doesnāt mean I didnāt learn something from that argument.
And on occasion, some atheists have posted here, whose arguments have ranged from poor, to bat shit crazy. They were called on their hubristic claims, and then left as well.
In the end people will believe what they want to, or they may critically examine all claims, and believe only what they deem sufficiently evidenced, but that is also a choice of course.
Iāve repeatedly stated, that the purpose of discourse here is to demonstrate to the wider audience, that canards and garbage do not pass here unchallenged.
We KNOW in advance that the pedlars of amateur apologetics are impervious to reason and learning, and indeed, they continue to demonstrate this on a grand scale. Weāre not interested in āconvertingā them, because we know that the kapok in their skulls has fossilised into Dunning-Kruger obstinacy and wilful ignorance.
Many of the specimens that turn up here, thinking that theyāre presenting some ineffable brand of wisdom, and that theyāre going to āstick it to the stoopid atheists ā¢ā, quickly learn that we learned about concepts they donāt even know exist, and which they canāt even spell the names of, let alone understand. The lurkers probably gain much entertainment value from seeing this play out.
Most of the usual suspects think theyāre bringing artillery, only to discover that theyāre bringing peashooters, and weāre replying with tactical nuclear weapons.
I disagree. While I agree that many apologists who come here think that way, I donāt think they learned how prepared we are for their arguments or how deeply we have thought about them.. They leave thinking they made us look stupid, because we didnāt accept their arguments.
But you are right that the lurkers get much more out of these postings. They are the true audience, not the apologists.
Youāre not wrong, but I think a few of them leave surprised that we donāt fit some expectation they have, of being just ignorant of the Truth, or the nuances of religious ideation, or opposed to it for reasons such as seeking a licentious existence or because of holding onto a grudge for some wrong committed against us by some believer who was either errant, or whom we misunderstood.
I think while virtually none of them can accept that we have good and considered reasons, they probably are at least surprised that WE think we have good reasons, that we have devoted consideration to and that it is for us a matter of personal integrity.
It is also good for them to be reminded that many of us were once as they were. They are encouraged to think of unbelievers as some particularly isolated and depraved and delusional group with no past religious life or aspirations because it flatters them to think so, so exposing them to the cognitive dissonance of having their comforting preconceptions violated is a Good Thing IMO, even if it seems not to accomplish much. I want them on notice that they could be next. The center doesnāt always hold!
I can empathize, pretty much seems that way in every debate Iāve been in with any Christian or Muslim. Iāve never changed a single personās mind. Iāve seen debates go in circles between the like here. Iāve had debates go no where in life other than them quit trying to convert me.
Itās possible to spend a whole lifetime online without seeing a specific person suddenly deconvert, but Iāve met people online in other forums who have gradually deconverted. One I recall posted 15 years ago as a rabid pentecostal religious nutter who are now a loud and proud atheist. And they are also estranged from their extended family, which speaks to one reason why deconversion is such a fraught process.
One factor to consider is that the vast majority of people who read posts online donāt post themselves. The lurkers are often the real seekers and thinkers and they donāt come back here to announce when the scales fall of their eyes, but I think it happens more often than we realize. Oneās metaphysical convictions are very personal, and like sexuality, itās a topic otherwise loquacious people are hesitant to post online about. They are withheld on such topics.