1 edit
Originally posted by @apathistDid you say something? Be specific you are quite good at jumping into conversations without really saying anything outside of expressing your displeasure without specific reasons. It was already established there are reasons for and against.
Reasons? And how well do those reasons stand up to inquiry?
There are plenty of reasons to believe in anything at all.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Just hope your afterlife is not in Hell...
This opening is similar to Pascal's Wager but with colours reversed.
Basically
Assume there is no afterlife and live this life to the fullest.
1. If there is no afterlife,
you were correct. Well done.
2. If there is an afterlife,
you were wrong, but hey, an afterlife! Who would have thought!
Originally posted by @athousandyoungor Basildon.
Just hope your afterlife is not in Hell...
or a million other places real or imagined.
Originally posted by @kellyjayPoint for kelly. So would you like to try a formal debate? You ever tried that? This site doesn't have the best software for it, but it is a fun and useful activity.
... you are quite good at jumping into conversations without really saying anything outside of expressing your displeasure without specific reasons. ...
I just said I have more specific reasons than you can handle.
Originally posted by @apathistDidn’t we try that before?
Point for kelly. So would you like to try a formal debate? You ever tried that? This site doesn't have the best software for it, but it is a fun and useful activity.
I just said I have more specific reasons than you can handle.
Originally posted by @apathistYou'd need a moderator, and from what I've seen, NO ONE on this site is a 'neutral observer'.
Point for kelly. So would you like to try a formal debate? You ever tried that? This site doesn't have the best software for it, but it is a fun and useful activity.
I just said I have more specific reasons than you can handle.
Originally posted by @suziannePosters from the non-believer side of the aisle who I think would have the capacity and integrity to put their own beliefs aside and moderate and facilitate a debate fairly if called upon to do so include JS357, BigDoggProblem, wolfgang59, rwingett, moonbus, vivify, karoly aczel, finnegan and several more besides.
You'd need a moderator, and from what I've seen, NO ONE on this site is a 'neutral observer'.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfHow would we know that you haven’t just named all your other account names?
Posters from the non-believer side of the aisle who I think would have the capacity and integrity to put their own beliefs aside and moderate and facilitate a debate fairly if called upon to do so include JS357, BigDoggProblem, wolfgang59, rwingett, moonbus, vivify, karoly aczel, finnegan and several more besides.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemHow would an unbeliever set their biases aside when listening to an argument about the supernatural coming from a believer? The setting aside of biases is a myth when dealing with the supernatural.
Being "neutral" all the time is a myth. Everyone is biased. Good moderators are those who can set aside their biases for the sake of the job.
The site
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf
Has some ideas on how to do a debate.
But what would a moderator do? A big part would be calling time for the various phases, but text-based debate would more likely be limited on word count.
It seems to me that the first order of business would be to develop a resolution, like “resolved, there is sufficient reason to believe God exists.” But then, is the opposition’s argument “there isn’t sufficient reason to believe God exists” or is it “there is sufficient reason to believe God does not exist”?
Originally posted by @js357I'd say there would be a lot to work out to be worth while, and worth the effort.
The site
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf
Has some ideas on how to do a debate.
But what would a moderator do? A big part would be calling time for the various phases, but text-based debate would more likely be limited on word count.
It seems to me that the first order of business would be to develop a resolu ...[text shortened]... ason to believe God exists” or is it “there is sufficient reason to believe God does not exist”?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhat are you on about?
How would we know that you haven’t just named all your other account names?