Regarding Debate

After lurking around here for the past few months, I'd like to make an observation.

This is going nowhere, and will continue to do so. It is fascinating and educational in terms of facts--oh yes indeed, I've learned a lot of facts here--so it's quite a diverting corner of the web. But debate isn't about a mere trading of ideas--it's about changing minds, about demonstrating that one way of thinking is superior to the other.

And we're not doing that. No one is changing their mind--not about anything significant--because there are as many presuppositions running around here as there are people. And we're not talking about our presuppositions. Just throwing them at each other. Hence, even when the facts are undisputed (a rare happenstance), we each still have a different take on them. Materialists remain materialists, theists remain theists, and certainly conservatives and liberals persist as they are. For instance, it is fairly clear that MG and Emeryroolz believe that that which can be scientifically detected is all that exists. James and Dave believe that matter isn't all there is. One side says God is not scientifically verifiable and therefore doesn't exist, the other says He exists, and besides, He's immaterial, so He's not scientifically falsifiable. At this point evidence is beside the point. We believe what we believe. All this talk is just an exchange of interesting facts and how we interpret them.

Now don't get me wrong--I'm not just trotting out the tired old "It's all a matter of faith anyway" argument--that's just a fancy way of ending a debate. What I'd much rather see is a real, profitable debate--one that we could actually resolve.

So here's my suggestion. Let's talk presuppositions instead of consequences thereof. Tell me what is a good and valid reason to accept materialism or theism or whatever. Or don't even bother with the good and valid bit--just tell me why you believe whatever you believe. Why do you think your presupposition is the right one?

If any of you already have a prepared answer for the question--heck, if you can even articulate what your fundamental presupposition is, then you're got the jump on the majority of the world, and my hat is off to you.

And if any of you have a reason beyond "That's what my parents believed," or "Duh--the alternative is retarded," then we'll really be getting somewhere (though personally I think the second of those two can be quite a good reason, if considered thoroughly). But any answer is good enough for starters--the point is to talk about the actual differences between us, not merely the consequences thereof.

Until then, we're doing nothing but calling each other idiots in the most high-falutin' ways we can figure. Fun, and somewhat educational, but fairly pointless.

I'm aware that this forum will be moving elsewhere in the near future, and I'll move with it--but to be honest, I'll probably mostly lurk unless these issues are addressed. If no one's going to actually challenge my presuppositions, why should I bother? All I'll learn is facts--a commodity so abundant as to be nearly worthless. Good, workable, resilient presuppositions now--those are worth talking about.