The only thing is that you can't use science as a limiter on a discussion about religion.

Net good vs. net bad will lead to an atrocities argument. That will inevitably lead to Christians vs. Communism and basic rhetoric that has already been discussed ad nauseum.



How about something more of a personal implications (cost benefit analysis) for being either. I tend to think that if you assume no afterlife it is equal, while assuming an afterlife tips the balance toward theism. That would be my initial premise anyway.



Speaking of the veracity of science and it's ramifications for religion doesn't seem to be that relevant for me as I haven't seen anything in science that truly refutes anything in my religion. At least there has been no discovery that came close to shaking my faith in any way.

On the contrary, the more I study mathematics, astronomy, physics, and biology, the more I believe in a Great Designer.

That last will be hard to find on the Internet, I imagine.

Or at least hard to find someone who is articulate. Lol. Not to be rude.

Anyway, much simpler, and more what I had in mind in formulating that one was discussion of specific scientific discoveries and their impacts. Big Bang, evolution, cosmology, etc.

However my gut is that we should go for a freestyle, because these discussions often get off topic anyway. Even if we go freestyle we can still all mutually agree in advance what is off topic or forbidden as a topic and I can make sure that we stay in the bounds.

Yeah as CA just said about personal benefit, I think many, if not most or all of these topics would just boil down to a God existence debate.

Is that not what it always boils down to?

CK I really don't think it is fair to frame a question that will probably have one side dealing with disagreements within itself and not the other. That one seems to be giving the atheists an advantage to begin with. Science can and should be used to further the discussion but beginning with a proposal that is contentious for one side doesn't seem like the best option.

And although some (including me) may disagree that a God existence debate is unresolvable, I think it has merit in that what we are doing here is just asking, who can be more convincing?

Up to you guys.

I think if it gets into a discussion of the afterlife, you get into Pascal's Wager territory and it doesn't go anywhere.

I like the idea of individual value, from the other side. If you could choose, would you rather your neighbor was religious or irreligious? What about your boss? Doctor? Why? And how much does the best answer depend on the individual being asked? How much would it depend on the particular creed in question?

I tend to specifically avoid God existence debates. I may assume He exists or doesn't for the purpose of an argument, but it doesn't make much sense trying to prove the existence of God. If that question were actually answerable at this time there wouldn't be any debate.

Not provable, no, but we all pretty much live our lives with an assumption one way or the other. The freestyle would just ask each side to convince people that their particular assumptions are ones that they should adopt too, however you want to do that.

Are we leaning toward the cost benefit analysis in a free form debate then?

Yeah sounds like it. Basically just "you should be ____ because _____" with no more rules than that.

Unless we can think of anything to forbid as a topic.

Also I dunno about you guys but my impression has always been that although you cannot really prove factually either side, both sides eagerly evidence-based support in an attempt to bolster their position, so I don't think that should be discouraged.

eagerly employ*

How are you going to handle fallacies, because both sides eagerly employ them too ;-)

As moderator are you going to handle inflammatory remarks to keep it scholarly?

That sounds both interesting and workable.

Sometimes those remarks get the quickest +1's

Hey, just saw this. I'm travelling through today. I'll try to read and get involved if it's still relevant in a day or so. That said, I reject the +1 criterion as a standard. I'll participate in the debate for the sake of the argument and its being judged by others, but will not acknowledge any such results either way (as they have much more to do with the audience than with the success of various arguments).

Take care.

Yes. Primarily I think my job would be to keep things on track, away from useless posturing and ad hominem.

Semck is of course correct about the audience. Lol.

Which is why on some level I had thought we might want to appoint a board of judges that both sides agree are relatively impartial to start with, and have their opinion as well as just an up or down vote from everyone for fun.

Because what's to stop some partisans on either side not fairly evaluating the argument and just voting their biases?

However I think having the debate in private then posting it all at once is best to prevent outside interference, right?

I'd recommend a rotation and a word # cap. Thus everyone has an appointed time to post and nobody (sorry obi) gets to decide the tone of the argument by forcing others to respond to a long list of objections.

Thucy, I for one also don't believe in impartial judges. I would much rather just have the debate and post the results for people to come to their own conclusions. If various people want to post reviews or thoughts, that is of course fine.

I agree with semck on the voting. I think it's not the best indicator of success in the debate. I would nominate Spyman as a judge. In terms of judges I'd think that both sides should nominate an equal number of judges from among the opposite camp, with Thucy being the swing vote.

I'd nominate Spyman, for instance, since he's pretty level headed and willing to listen.

Ooops bad edit. forgot about nominating Spyman in the first para. lol.

semck I think that judges are probably a good idea if only that people will look to +1's as the best inidicator. Yet, the judges don't really have to declare a winner as much as provide commentary on what they perceived to be the most compelling points on both sides. A sister thread in which the judges discuss the debate may be an option. Even two sister thread with official and unofficial commentary might be an option. God this is getting pedantic, and I'm not really sure what that word means, lol.

x-men ftw

Erm....so...

Are we talking about debating this...or X-men, now? LOL

What's your proposition for a format, Thucy?

I nominate Semck to speak for the Christians.

But be aware that the reasons Christians want to debate is not to win, but to get the word out that God is alive and that belief in God is perfectly compatible with all we know of science and history.

...and excuse my grammar. *sigh*

Sounds good, Sandgoose (the nonpartisan party/moderator) will be overseeing this event. And will allow the athiests to post their argument first. Christians...you're second...followed by my rather detailed troll response. :)