I created this thread to be the catchall, end all debate between (--Theists--) and atheists. Firstly, I would like to say a few things. 1. The point of this debate is to be as unbiased as possible. A) That is why I have been describing god-believers as (--Theists--). If you have a better name for yourselves, PM me. B) As I am an atheist and cannot even pretend to be unbiased, I would like a (--theist--) co-moderator for this debate Volunteers please PM me. 2. This will not degenerate into useless bickering. Anyone who goes to that level will be asked to leave. Personal attacks are, of course, forbidden. The format is this: Points for Atheism/Theism will be PMed to me/the co-moderator. Preferable atheism to me, (--theism--) to them. They will be posted here by one of us, then debated to a definite conclusion. The conclusion may be that no conclusion is possible. The first point sent will be the first debated, but after that it will be atheist, (--theist--), Atheist, (--Theist--) etc. Points- Atheist: Theist: Thank you for your time and suggestions.
Jump - Respectfully, it sounds like you are trying to appropriate to yourself a private notion in a very freewheeling, public forum. To ask people to PM you in order to get their points heard won't, in my opinion, yield anything as folks are accustomed in this section to just speaking their mind. Moreover, with a history of at least some spamming taking place in PM, and your relatively short history here, if I were to hazard a guess, most will stay away. If I could suggest: if you want a discussion, please clarify the lines of argument you are seeking, and let 'er rip here, on your thread. Cheers.
Ditto. The structured and corporate way you express this tells me to stay forever away from this thread .
What would be truly hysterical is if we who are ignoring this guy's thread continue, posting tomes explaining why. (My first post might have better just said), .
Word of the Day I think those set of rules would take some of the fun and spontaneity out of debating.
Okay, fine whatever. I guess I just wanted to get to some kind of agreeable conclusion. Does anyone think it's worth starting this debate again? I would like to know the response of the (--theists--) (please, at least give me something you like to be called, if just that!) is to the studies that say that the smarter you are, the more likely that you are an atheist. In other words, smarter people generally go atheist.
An informal "P&R normal" debate is certainly possible. I don't think however that a man's smartness and his religion or lack of it are correlated.
Well, I suppose that's true for everything... So I'll go back to the very well trodden road: God doesn't exist because there is no confirmed factual evidence of it.
To what, ? If so, no, certainty of whether god does or doesn't exist isn't knowable by current, empirical means. And, worry less about whether god exists or not, and just live. My response.