Originally posted by @apathist Reasons? And how well do those reasons stand up to inquiry?
There are plenty of reasons to believe in anything at all.
Did 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.
Originally posted by @kellyjay ... you are quite good at jumping into conversations without really saying anything outside of expressing your displeasure without specific reasons. ...
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 @apathist 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 @apathist 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.
You'd need a moderator, and from what I've seen, NO ONE on this site is a 'neutral observer'.
Originally posted by @suzianne You'd need a moderator, and from what I've seen, NO ONE on this site is a 'neutral observer'.
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.
Originally posted by @fmf 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.
How would we know that you haven’t just named all your other account names?
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem 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.
How 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.
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”?
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”?
I'd say there would be a lot to work out to be worth while, and worth the effort.
16 Dec '17 18:591 edit
Reverse Pascal's Wager (NZ variation)
Back to Top