Awesome! Thank you for the tip. I had never heard of either of these. I really appreciate it.

Yeah, Facebook was one of the worst computer-related things that had ever happened.

Debating the existence of god, I'll grant you, is most often a giant waste of time. Debating other things, not as much.

@JeffMurray right. It is such a waste of time to debate my experience. Like, duh, I am right here.

I respect your decision to steer away from these things. That said, these things are much like the creationist debates and the internal dialogue that happens on "our side" about whether legitimate scientists should engage with those who grossly misuse science and whether there is a productive end to it. I won't claim to have the definitive answer to that, and I'm not really sure that anybody really KNOWS. There are good persuasive arguments both ways, on the pro-debate side and the anti-debate side. Even from the pro-debate viewpoint, I don't think the goal is ever to persuade the one making the opposing argument. That will almost never happen. Rather, if persuasion is ever a goal, the audience would be those lurking who aren't participating in the debate. One viewpoint says that addressing the argument gives it some air of legitimacy so let's not do that, while the other viewpoint says that not addressing it gives the viewpoint an unchallenged forum where the audience hears only that side of it.

Either way there are other good reasons (for some, at least) to participate in these. Personally, I just enjoyed the activity. I realize that's not everybody's cup of tea, but it was mine. I did make a great many friends both among those who shared the same viewpoint and sometimes surprisingly, those who had very different views.

@Word That's kind of an interesting one if included in that debate is whether or not we're part of a simulation...

@JeffMurray I've hear about a matrix theory of sorts.

@Word Once you hear it out, it's kinda hard to deny.

@GeorgiaChris I do not find scientists searching for answers about any gods because there is no persuasive argument on both sides. Science is not trying to prove a god. Bible believers try very hard to prove one and do not use logic and evidence.

There is not a lot of participation here.

@Dyl1983
What is your problem?

I was still religious when MySpace existed but I loved hanging out in Bush is an Asshole debate room.
Seeds of doubt were planted into me and helped lead to my path of becoming a Born again atheist.

Seems like he might be saying the quality or level of participation here isn't up to his liking.

@JeffMurray I did not look at it that way at first but maybe he IS an arrogant prick?

@JeffMurray I'm more saying that I'm not looking for debate with people who largely agree with me on most of the things I would be looking to debate. As far as I can tell, this site is largely if not entirely composed of those who aren't adherents to some sort of religious beliefs. It might have avoided half of the responses if I had been clear that I was looking to debate people who have religious beliefs, and the assortment of what those beliefs were and how people came to acquire those beliefs were all over the map back in the day and is exactly why it had appeal. It was fascinating to run across that completely novel way someone came to have a religious belief -- like the first time someone dropped in and described a very clear episode of sleep paralysis and was convinced it had been a demon attack.

It was eye-opening in all kinds of other ways, like learning how impossible it is to presume what another person's religious beliefs might be. An example was when a woman who had identified as "Christian" dropped in, I proceeded under the assumption that she more or less held to the beliefs of most of the others carrying that label, and quickly found that I had to spend time figuring out exactly what people who are part of Christian Science (the Mary Baker Eddy sect, not the young-earth creationists who claim to have a better application of science than people who do actual science) believe, and it was really intriguing to learn that there is a group whose basic premise is some sort of third party solipsism where we're not REALLY here physically, that it's some sort of illusion and we're just manifestations of the ongoing thoughts of a deity. Then there were the creationist claims that I'd never seen before that I might not have otherwise seen had I not been debating, like one guy who insisted that the mere fact that planets tend to be roughly spherical is proof of divine design because how else would that have happened.

I'm fascinated by the neverending assortment of things people believe, and maybe that is not unlike how people rubberneck as they pass the car wreck. These kinds of encounters are what I miss, and I don't expect that this is what I would find here with this particular membership. This membership is more of an opportunity to share in the misery and joy of life with like-minded people, to bounce ideas or to come home and vent a bit, like "can you guys believe the shit that's going on out there?"

@AnneWimsey That's not at all what I was saying. I actually agree with the sentiment I suggested. There have been quite a few posts (a couple of mine included) that I think should have produced a lively debate and substantive discussion that only saw a couple comments before it died. (And in contrast, likely would have on the forums he spoke of.) This forum is far more like the instant gratification for short attention spans format of Facebook than it is the debate forums of old.