It's purpose is to have discussions, and those discussions foster understanding. If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.
I rather like the example because many of the examples in recent threads.
1) So we have threads like 2+2 = 6.2, which take place in all forums.
2) Than we have threads like "anecdotal examples talking to dead relatives" = "god." From a scientific point of view, it's wrong and the participating scientist should try to change their opinion. That's not preaching their "faith," it's just pointing out how science works.
3) Most are often mixed, "a ancient story says 2+2 = 6.2, but modern science says it's 4, which is right?" Again science would be obligated to point out that the story is wrong.
My question is do we let threads like this go on and just monitor for personal attacks and other clear rules violations, or do we shut them down if they that don't get into science--including those that don't have anything to do with science--talks like the proverbial discussions the number of angels on heads of pins--something for which science is mute except for the simple statement that scientific opinion squarely says there aren't angels.
--
Do discussions in the religious forums change minds? I doubt it. On other hand, taking an example from religiosity towards non-religiousness, most of today's atheist came from religious families --often a long hard row after reading, participating and processing things like these discussions.