The Pumpkin King
Veteran XX
If these discussions are a waste of time, it's because people are unwilling to admit that they have no good reason to believe the things they believe, and especially have no good reason to tell others that they should believe the same things.
Yes, it would be masochistic of you to try to answer OP's question, because you know you don't have a convincing answer. So here you are, trying to claim the moral high ground against strawmen, which ironically makes you look even more intellectually dishonest than if you actually tried to justify your beliefs with the usual intellectually dishonest methods.
GG, thanks for your ultimate surrender.
Thank you for proving my entire point with a textbook example of what I was describing...
In general, people see these discussions as game to be "won" or "lost."
They are more interested in "winning" than actually learning anything or learning about the opposing party's point of view. In this case, victory is even declared in full before any discussion has actually even taken place. From a technical stand-point, the first reply is the fastest a discussion can possibly end and it is not possible for an individual to be any more closed off than that.
People seeking knowledge usually ask a lot of questions and make far less statements. In this case we can see Amadeus already going on the offense with typical "go to" canned attacks that they use over and over again like "intellectually insincere" in the attempt to make me look irreputable, provoke me to an emotional response, etc.. Also canned "strawmen" stuff that would suggest that the closed-off people I described do not exist, when everyone knows that they do.
I will further highlight my main point by asking everyone some questions:
"In the above post, does Amadeus seem like the type of individual that is open towards intellectual discussion, seeking new knowledge, asking questions, and is interested in taking in new ideas that may totally change his worldview?"
"Based on the above post, would you spend time engaging with Amadeus on the topic of religion with the sincere belief that you could change his mind or heavily influence his belief system while doing so?"
Most people in the world approach this topic of discussion like Amadeus just did, hence why it is a giant waste of time in most cases. A person as closed off as him, will not even consider any viable evidence towards much of anything, because they already know that they have already won the game to the point of the opposing party having given their "ultimate surrender". If the opposing party has already surrendered, they are no longer in a position to provide new information that would show any insight on any truth.
Therefore Amadeus's post translates as "I already know more than you. There is nothing that you can teach me." Which is how he truly feels.
In general, most people feel this way...
I will be falsely accused of having "no evidence" or "no argument" and that's fine by me. I'm secure in what I know enough to accept that false accusation and how it may cause me to appear to others, as I do not value "winning." Being falsely accused is far preferable to wasting hours of my time on someone that has already openly declared themselves entirely closed-off.