This is a repost from the CARM site. I mention Metacrock simply because he's one of the chief arguers. I like to post the same thread on the two sites, its an interesting contrast.

I've gotten very, very, very bored with argument forums. I'm not a professional debator, not a lawyer , not a scientist and really don't like arguing.If you've noticed, I've gone more for asking more questions than posting arguments. I suppose I'm here more for just understanding just what motivates people to believe and do things, that to me, seem really, really nuts. Now I don't mean that as an insult, being a little nuts in my book makes you unique and one can learn from people they think are nuts, even from people they dislike. An old eastern proverb states:"Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him".

I stay away from arguments where 90% of the dialogue is about how to argue "logically". Its meaningless to me, for when one follows that line, they can prove or disprove anything to make their point. Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were freed simply because their attorneys made a more "logical and valid" case by simply poking holes in the prosecution's arguments. Does this mean they're really innocent?I have no idea, I lost interest in the stories after one day of the media circus and stopped caring. All they had to do was present one reasonable doubt, much like how Meta says all he has to do is "show one element of rationality" in an argument. So when I read phrases like "a priori assumption" my eyes immediately glaze over and I think, "Sheesh, not again!" No matter how good or bad one is at presenting a case, eventually the meat of the case is lost in the mechanics of argument. It does nothing in my opinion to prove or disprove the case.

This leads me to wonder about Christians and how their minds work. Many of the folks in the godhatesfags church are lawyers. Families of lawyers, long lines of lawyers. People who just live to argue. How much support have they gained for their cause by presenting arguments? How many people who are normally tolerant and liberal have looked at how they continually escape jail time through legal maneuverings(arguing) and said, "They're so good at arguing their case they must be right, I have to hate fags too". So if your purpose for arguing is Evangelism, it seems to me that you're going around your derrier to get to your elbow.

What's the motivation anyway? Is it evangelism or do you feel that because people disagree, your faith is on some sort of trial, because that's how your arguments come across. "One point in rationality" sounds an awful lot like "one reasonable doubt" to me.Its easy to make something subjective sound reasonable to the subject, another thing entirely to sell it someone else and arguing like a defense attorney just seems like an inefficient way to make a case.

I know Christianity, particularly the fundie kind is ripe with conspiracy theories behind the eschatology. So I suppose feeling like your faith is on trial is part and parcel, but it just seems to me that it goes beyond mere defense, it comes across like a person yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there's no smoke. If you feel that your faith is on trial (personally, not some news story), lets see some evidence. Has law enforcement tried to bar you from your church? Has your local TV or radio station banned your favorite Christian programming? Have Family Services taken your kids away because you decided to home or private school them? North America is the freest continent on the planet. I lived in what I've heard fundies call "godless , liberal Canada" and I saw no evidence that Christian faith is on trial, indeed, fundie Christians drive around the block in Toronto in cars decked with slogans like "Where Will You Spend Eternity?" while they blare their preaching on loudspeakers and stand on street corners preaching and handing out tracts alongside Muslims and Scientologists. Does this sound like you're on trial?