I'll debate either whether the idea of 'god' is logical or the historicity of the resurrection.

Or rather anything, just get this going.

I'm game.

@semck - I don't mean to say Calvinism is dead, but is the literal concept of predestination 'alive and well in the modern church'? I hadn't gotten that impression, but I certainly could be mistaken

What sort of thing do you want to debate PE?

Anyone want to take up Putin on the rationality of the idea of God or the historicity of the resurrection?

We've got several Christians hanging around but I don't think many of them have specified what they'd like to debate. As for potential atheist/non-religious debaters, here's a tentative roster:

1. obiwanobiwan
2. Putin33
3. President Eden
4. ?

I'm interested in defending the Christian side against whoever. Of the things I've seen mentioned, I'd like to debate the value of religion, either in society or in individual lives. Or, like Putin, I'll just debate anything. Debates are fun!

Oh, I'm also in the debate-anything camp

So I forgot what CA and obi agreed to debate. Anyone recall? Was it the existence of the Christian God, simple as that? Or no, that's what semck wanted to discuss.

Anyone willing to take on ckroberts on the value of religion?

It's cool yall are willing to debate anything, so maybe I'll just throw out some of the ideas we've had so far, please add to this list things you are also potentially interested in debating so we can start to find some partners.

-Historicity of resurrection
-Value of religion - individual life
-Value of religion - society
-Logic of "God" concept
-Existence of the Christian God

Still can't remember what CA and obi were going to debate. Anyway, please add to that list.

Also I think I remember AverageWhiteBoy wanting to debate with the atheists, so hopefully he sees this.

I'm game for value of religion to society. Or Logic of God concept.

So Putin33 v dipplayer on Logic of God
Obi v CA on some topic yet known only to them

Is naturalism and atheism incompatible?

Is theism and science incompatible?

Is the widespread employment of the theory of natural selection by the interaction of genetic mutation with the environment(aka evolution) to subjects such as eugenics, anthropology, economics, sociology, psychology etc. (aka Universal Darwinism) an alternative belief system for the atheist?

@PE, I'd say a literal belief in predestination is alive and well, yes. Look to the Presbyterian Church in America, e.g. (PCA, not PC(USA)).

@Thucy, I'd be interested in debating whether belief in God is rational (or compatible with reason). This is distinct from putin's question of whether the CONCEPT of God is rational, so don't conflate them please. It looks like dipplayer has taken that one anyway. I could debate PE, e.g. But it doesn't have to be PE.

(Again, I would urge that once we have pairs, but BEFORE the debate starts, the pairs hammer out a precise statement of the question they're debating).

Resolved: The Christian god has logically incompatible properties.

Seems like we're moving toward "Religion can be and is a force for good in the world" What do you think Obi. It seems like you're a Hitchens fan. I didn't realize he'd passed. Sorry to hear that. Cancer sucks.

CA what are you and obi debating I forgot.

Also, I know they're different semck but I thought Putin wanted to discuss the concept.

PE, do you want to discuss with semck whether belief in God is rational?

If you do we have

Obi vs CA on whatever they're debating
Putin vs dipplayer on whether the concept of god is logical consistent
PE vs semck on whether belief in God is rational

The last one, I think, should be regarding the value of religion to society, and that would about cover it.

Unless that's what you and obi are debating, CA. looks like it is, so nvm. still need a fourth pairing then we can look toward getting started.

I've made a few suggestions. I think Obi has too. Not sure if we actually agreed on it.

Hmm. Subject seems rather clear-cut... so I'm sure I'm missing something. That'll work, I guess. I'm concerned about some of the definitions being vague, but I suppose we'll work that out as part of the debate.

That's not at all what I had in mind by the "Logic of God" argument, Putin. Let me sleep on it and I'll try to frame my idea in the morning.

There might be some crossover between what I had in mind and what Semck is talking about. I'm not sure I can avoid that.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that semck and I are on the same page. My understanding of the topic was: Does a Deity make rational sense? Can a rational argument for the existence of a Deity be given? What is that argument?

Oh brother. Well the persnickety types better sort out the topics, because this is getting irksome.

OK PE. I'd be happy to discuss the definition of the question till you feel more comfortable, if you'd like.

Dipplayer, yeah, that's why I didn't want to take putin's question. It's interesting, but less my area of interest.

I mean if two sets of people want to debate the 'is belief rational' argument (if the theists can't figure out a different topic), can we do a duplicate, or what?

It's not really my area of interest, and I'm not enough of a logician. I barely got through my one logic class in university. And it's also framed in terms that automatically put the believer on the defensive.

I'm still willing to take the topic of Religion's benefit to society, if Semck has the rationality of belief covered.

Every debate is framed in terms of an affirmative motion, in which one person takes the affirmative case and the other opposes it. I see no way to frame such a question in a more specific way.

If you'd like, it can be "The Christian god has logically consistent properties".

Alright, although I think CA & Obi are doing that one. Hopefully they'll reply one way or another with what their topic is.

Last I read CA said he wanted to debate either 1) the personal benefits of belief; or 2) whether atheism or theism brings more value to human life.

So that might leave room for the societal value question.