Religious debate

[Kadagar_AV]

Would anyone be interested in a religious debate?

Keywords would be: why there is a god / why there isn't a god, and why a deist religion is negative / why a deist religion is positive.

Rules would be: One post per day, other person then having 24h to respond (meaning each person answering every other day). Should give suffiecient time to come up with a reply.

I would ask the thread to be clear of ALL other posters. It is however perfectly allowed for others to get in contact with the ones who debate and come up with ideas or examples.

I would set the debate in about 2 weeks from now (going on vacation). Exact starting date can be agreed upon by both parts, it is not relevant, just want both parts to have time to prepare (and to be active).

Anyone up for a game?

[Sigurd]

You mean like a formal debate setup?

How would there be a ruling on this debate and which other limitations would you implement? (e.g. number of rounds)
Are both contestants going to open with an affirmative position?

[Kadagar_AV]

You mean like a formal debate setup?

How would there be a ruling on this debate and which other limitations would you implement? (e.g. number of rounds)
Are both contestants going to open with an affirmative position?

I do not think a ruling is possible in this case. I don't even think a ruling would be a good idea. The question has such a big implication on peoples life that a "X scored 2 points" isn't really viable. However, everyone can of course read it and see what they themselves think. We could set the time limit at 15 posts each (30 posts all in all, or about a month in time). With a possible extension if both parts feel there is more to add.

A post would look (after the opening)

*reply to anything yet unsettled
* reply to last post
* new question



I think the easiest would be for one poster to open. Not with a huge rant though, but with ONE short question. The other side can then answer it elaborately and come with a new question of his choice. After this the first poster can then elaborate on his own initial question.

That way no side has an advantage in the opening, and we will avoid loooooooooong opening rants trying to cover everything.

Am more than ready to let the other side choose if they want to open up or not, so def not trying to get some strategical advantage. Will most def do my best to make it fair :)

[Sigurd]

I do not think a ruling is possible in this case. I don't even think a ruling would be a good idea. The question has such a big implication on peoples life that a "X scored 2 points" isn't really viable. However, everyone can of course read it and see what they themselves think. We could set the time limit at 15 posts each (30 posts all in all, or about a month in time). With a possible extension if both parts feel there is more to add.

Ok...

A post would look (after the opening)

• reply to anything yet unsettled
• reply to last post
• new question

I think the easiest would be for one poster to open. Not with a huge rant though, but with ONE short question. The other side can then answer it elaborately and come with a new question of his choice. After this the first poster can then elaborate on his own initial question.

That way no side has an advantage in the opening, and we will avoid loooooooooong opening rants trying to cover everything.

Am more than ready to let the other side choose if they want to open up or not, so def not trying to get some strategical advantage. Will most def do my best to make it fair :)

Personally I like to debate religious matters, but since I am agnostic, I tend to debate these matters for the sake of debating; like a game.
Its about finding fallacies and pointing them out and to cover your tracks by finding an unassailable logic formulation.
It is therefore important IMO, if a debate should be fair, that both contestants opens with an affirmative argument for their "side" in a debate.

Take your suggestion: Why is there a God.
The pro side will make an affirmative using formal logic explaining why there must be a God.
The con side will make an affirmative explaining why there can't be a God.

Then both sides has something to work with. As you said, the initial affirmative statement should be short, to the point and built up as an argument with a set of propositions and a conclusion.
These are prepared in advance and posted nearly simultaneously (at least they shouldn't be based on the other contestant's affirmative statement).

Then a few rounds of contesting each other's statements or positions. Then, as you mentioned, there could be a few rounds of questioning each other to positions yourself for a final rebuttal.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok...



Personally I like to debate religious matters, but since I am agnostic, I tend to debate these matters for the sake of debating; like a game.
Its about finding fallacies and pointing them out and to cover your tracks by finding an unassailable logic formulation.
It is therefore important IMO, if a debate should be fair, that both contestants opens with an affirmative argument for their "side" in a debate.

Take your suggestion: Why is there a God.
The pro side will make an affirmative using formal logic explaining why there must be a God.
The con side will make an affirmative explaining why there can't be a God.

Then both sides has something to work with. As you said, the initial affirmative statement should be short, to the point and built up as an argument with a set of propositions and a conclusion.
These are prepared in advance and posted nearly simultaneously (at least they shouldn't be based on the other contestant's affirmative statement).

Then a few rounds of contesting each other's statements or positions. Then, as you mentioned, there could be a few rounds of questioning each other to positions yourself for a final rebuttal.

I am not sure an agnostic is very suitable to represent the deist side. I was hoping someone like Rhyfelwyr (or someone else with a with a strong religious belief), would pick up the glove.

It might however be argued that an agnostic is not all that bad, as discussion would be deism at large, not Christianity in specific. However, I am more than willing to also take the discussion against a pure Christian, but, then the debate has less impact on the forums readers of other deist faiths.

I guess I think someone with a personal faith who is ready to listen to input from other deists would be the best choice.

IF, however, the deists on this forum feel comfortable letting you handle the discussion, and if you in return are ready to work much as a moderator (know anything about being moderator? (pun intended)) for your team, I see no problem having an agnostic at the helm.



About opening:

Formal logic as to why it is a God? Feels a little unfair to the deist side.

As I said in my opening post, initial arguments can be quite easy: there is a God / there is not a God. Deist religion is a positive factor in the world / deist religion is a negative factor in the world.

Those being the two main questions, or?

We could even boil it down to "there is/isnt a god.

However, if other side would want, we could phrase ourselves in, say, maximum 100 words as opening up statements.

My idea of first poster opening with just a short question however levels the playing field a lot.

Initial poster gets to pick the question, but is second to elaborate on it.

It is a very efficient way to open a debate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do we have any Deists here?

[Kadagar_AV]

Do we have any Deists here?

Yes.

No?

[Sigurd]

Do we have any Deists here?

That would be any Christian religion besides The Catholic church and Mormons.

edit:
I suspect Kadgar means theist.
Saying it fast enough it sounds the same. At least that is the traditional religious debate; the theist vs. the atheist.

[Kadagar_AV]

That would be any Christian religion besides The Catholic church and Mormons.

I was a bit unclear... There are so many subcategories that I get a bit lost sometimes.

With deists I pretty much meant anyone believing in one supreme being, so Mormons and Catholics would be included. My bad however, would anyone care to teach me what the proper word would be?

I am pretty sure it is not "faith-head" ;)

Of course, a deist would be the most logical choice for a debate, unless we want arguments such as "I am right and I know I am right because I know I am right"

[Sigurd]

I am not sure an agnostic is very suitable to represent the deist side. I was hoping someone like Rhyfelwyr (or someone else with a with a strong religious belief), would pick up the glove.

Fair enough, but I have studied a few theological debates and know an argument or two.

It might however be argued that an agnostic is not all that bad, as discussion would be deism at large, not Christianity in specific. However, I am more than willing to also take the discussion against a pure Christian, but, then the debate has less impact on the forums readers of other deist faiths.

I guess I think someone with a personal faith who is ready to listen to input from other deists would be the best choice.

At least you will get better reactions from such... eh?

IF, however, the deists on this forum feel comfortable letting you handle the discussion, and if you in return are ready to work much as a moderator (know anything about being moderator? (pun intended)) for your team, I see no problem having an agnostic at the helm.

Just don't think of me as a moderator in the Backroom. I am as much a visitor here as you are. This is Banquo's, CountA's, Seamus' and Clegane's domain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I could cheat and slap you with a 999 pointer and win by walkover.

About opening:

Formal logic as to why it is a God? Feels a little unfair to the deist side.

You would think that naturally... I am of another opinion. But this depend on both sides taking an affirmative position as an opener.

As I said in my opening post, initial arguments can be quite easy: there is a God / there is not a God. Deist religion is a positive factor in the world / deist religion is a negative factor in the world.

Those being the two main questions, or?

We could even boil it down to "there is/isnt a god.

However, if other side would want, we could phrase ourselves in, say, maximum 100 words as opening up statements.

My idea of first poster opening with just a short question however levels the playing field a lot.

Initial poster gets to pick the question, but is second to elaborate on it.

It is a very efficient way to open a debate.

The bolded part is the classic of all debate.
A 100 word opening position is too narrow. You wouldn't be able to build a good case with that limitation. If I do this and with the angle I am thinking of - I would need a longer opening. I am not sure how long. But the initial post could be a teaser of the main arguments and the full argument could be developed during the remainder of the debate.

There needs to be a defined scope. Too many religious debates jumps from point to point and angle to angle, without the opposition being able to answer the first point; the so-called topic bouncing method. A defined scope keeps us on topic and prevents us from drawing in meta stuff.
If we are discussing the existence of God - it would be out of scope to drag evolution or Catholic priests into it. A particular God would also be out of scope. (I would debate the existence of a creator and not Jesus in particular)

[Andres]

This is starting to sound like a debate on how you are going to debate... You guys don't have Belgian roots by any chance?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Off topic: A bit like Belgian politicians about reforming the structure of our State. "First, we will negotiate on the rules of the debate that we will have on how we are going to do the negotiations about how we are going to conduct the dialogue between the communities, which we need to have before we will enter the negotiations on the framework and references of the..."

And then they wonder why it takes so long before things actually move.

This reminds me, there's still a debate between me and Louis about BHV that hasn't finished yet. Not that we're in a hurry, we'll both be reduced to dust and ashes once BHV is solved. I wonder what will happen first: a) the apocalyps or b) a satisfying solution for BHV. My money is on a).

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think I'll pass.

Although for whoever does debate, I think the deism/theism issue should be cleared up. As I understand it, deism means a God that sets everything in motion, but then does not/cannot intervene in the workings of the universe after that. A sort of 'universe making factory' as I heard it somewhere.

On the other hand, theism tends to mean a god that does interact with the universe and maybe also people to varying degrees.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nice idea to set up parameters in advance. When and if a debate is begun, please do so in a new thread and I can than close this "information" thread and let the debate start clean.

[Sigurd]

I think I'll pass.

Although for whoever does debate, I think the deism/theism issue should be cleared up. As I understand it, deism means a God that sets everything in motion, but then does not/cannot intervene in the workings of the universe after that. A sort of 'universe making factory' as I heard it somewhere.

On the other hand, theism tends to mean a god that does interact with the universe and maybe also people to varying degrees.

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

Are you saying that this would mean Protestants are deists? I've never seen them called this in any of the history books or anything, deism always seems to have been made quite distinct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think I'll pass.

Although for whoever does debate, I think the deism/theism issue should be cleared up. As I understand it, deism means a God that sets everything in motion, but then does not/cannot intervene in the workings of the universe after that. A sort of 'universe making factory' as I heard it somewhere.

On the other hand, theism tends to mean a god that does interact with the universe and maybe also people to varying degrees.

I think I'll pass as well. I don't have the energy, and it's not a topic that interests me a great deal.

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

Well, you are technically correct. However, all Christians believe in a Present and Active God, and in Revelation. Bear in mind that most forms of Protestantism allow for "minor" or "unofficial" Revelation direct from God. So Christians are not Deistic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

BHV

Making the solvable unsovable so as not to have to solve it is at once surrealist, stupid and brilliant. Most Belgian then.


Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time is the sign of imbecility. Ttrying something different each time but managing the same result over and over is a mark of brilliance. The combination of the two makes it sheer surrealism.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Kad. Just start a thread with a title like "Atheism is humble, religion is arrogant". And then argue reasonably with the people who reply.

It's the backroom way.

[Beskar]

No one can win the debate, because you got tons of religions who mostly say they are the correct one, and the others are false. So you will have masses of "religious infighting" then you got others who think religion is a bunch of crook for deluded people.

End of the day, it would ultimately be pointless.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think I'll pass.

Although for whoever does debate, I think the deism/theism issue should be cleared up. As I understand it, deism means a God that sets everything in motion, but then does not/cannot intervene in the workings of the universe after that. A sort of 'universe making factory' as I heard it somewhere.

On the other hand, theism tends to mean a god that does interact with the universe and maybe also people to varying degrees.

Sad to hear you wont pick up the gauntlet... I do however hope you will help strenghten the religious side, I know you have a thing or two to say about faith from previous threads.

Nice idea to set up parameters in advance. When and if a debate is begun, please do so in a new thread and I can than close this "information" thread and let the debate start clean.

Yepp yepp, intended that. How do we keep the discussion therad free of other posters though? Maybe both partys could PM their reply to you or some other mod, and you post it on the forum. So thread can stay locked for others?

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

I think the belief in "god" could well be enough as marker for the religious side. I dont intend the debate to steer into catholic priests fiddling young boys, nor Muhammeds pedophile tendencies. So the exact variation of faith is not really important, it is the bigger question of a "god" that is at hand. So does not really matter if you are theist, deist or basicly whatever.

I think I'll pass as well. I don't have the energy, and it's not a topic that interests me a great deal.



Well, you are technically correct. However, all Christians believe in a Present and Active God, and in Revelation. Bear in mind that most forms of Protestantism allow for "minor" or "unofficial" Revelation direct from God. So Christians are not Deistic.

Same as to Rhyfelwyr, I hope you strenghten the religious team :)

Kad. Just start a thread with a title like "Atheism is humble, religion is arrogant". And then argue reasonably with the people who reply.

It's the backroom way.

Those threads often lose focus fast. Might be fun with something new for a change, no? Dont mind me, I enjoy drunken bashing as much as the next one ;)

No one can win the debate, because you got tons of religions who mostly say they are the correct one, and the others are false. So you will have masses of "religious infighting" then you got others who think religion is a bunch of crook for deluded people.

End of the day, it would ultimately be pointless.

I dont think you are correct doing that assumption. Anyone remember Zain? He came here all creationist, and upon having spent some weeks here he started to seriosly question his own belief. People do listen to reason. Occasionaly. I know I would, with no doubt in my mind, be religious if someone could make it clear to me as to why I should be.

So no, I do not think this debate must be pointless. If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

And heck, if absolutely nothing else, it would give anyone interested a chance to stretch their brain muscles a little bit :)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We've done debate threads like this before. The mods let everyone know that it is a private fight and that they must bow out until the floor is opened to all comers. Mods excise any threads that get in the way. Simple enough.

[Kadagar_AV]

We've done debate threads like this before. The mods let everyone know that it is a private fight and that they must bow out until the floor is opened to all comers. Mods excise any threads that get in the way. Simple enough.

Fair enough :)

I love it when you speak green ;)

[Beskar]

I dont think you are correct doing that assumption. Anyone remember Zain? He came here all creationist, and upon having spent some weeks here he started to seriosly question his own belief. People do listen to reason. Occasionaly. I know I would, with no doubt in my mind, be religious if someone could make it clear to me as to why I should be.

So no, I do not think this debate must be pointless. If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

And heck, if absolutely nothing else, it would give anyone interested a chance to stretch their brain muscles a little bit :)

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

End of the day, ignostic/igtheism is obviously the best position.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of god:

1. The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'god'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does god exist?" as meaningless.

Here is the part explaining theological noncognitivism.


Edit: That is also my own stance on religion.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

Thank you for sharing. I do not think everyone would agree though. Could meet the points, but don't want to derail the thread. Feel free to message me in PM though, or open up a thread about igtheism :)

[rotorgun]

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

End of the day, ignostic/igtheism is obviously the best position.

Quoted from Wikipedia:


Here is the part explaining theological noncognitivism.


Edit: That is also my own stance on religion.

My Dear Beskar(What exactly does Beskar signify?). I am saddened that one of such enlightenment as you, should take such a posistion. Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492? Please forgive my presumption upon our recent aquiantance, but it is inconcievable for me to believe that you really feel this way deep down.

I shall pray for you.

PS: I don't wish anyone to think that I think that my faith is infallible, for much is the influence of man upon religion. I just want the record to stand that I am a God fearing soul who hedges his bet upon the existence of a diety.

PPS: I apologize if this is premature, as the debate has not been agreed upon yet.

[Beskar]

Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492?

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods. Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

However, what you also fail to consider is the other concepts and ideas which were disproven. Why does your faith compare with Einstein and Columbus and not those of lets say, the Catholic Church who were strong advocates of the "Flat Earth" concept and the world being the centre of the universe.

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply an idea some one came up with, with no current basis on reality.

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge, doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva who is from a far older religious order. Also in the Christian faith, while many of the routes are present in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being which you might believe in.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism. I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

As you are unfamilar with me, I will provide some further insight. I was pretty much indoctrinated as a child as a methodist Christian. I was top in bible class, was the star-pupil of the church and was once even commented on by a international church leader (that church branches equalivant to a pope, as it were) as being a future preacher. So I am not from an uninformed view of religion, I had real personal experience. I remember being told feelings such as guilt was "God telling you to do the right thing", but it was simply attributing real human feelings to something which simply isn't there. I simply grew up and realised things aren't actually like that. I remember struggling, trying to find some validation, some shred of existence, which I found none. The only things which are real are the people around you, the love and fellowship. Churches are communities, once you are in these communities, it is very hard to leave. Many simply put aside their views and feelings of "god" and simply stay there for the ritual of it all, as Orwell famously said "Ignorance is bliss". As Marx comments "Religion is the Opium of the People", he is correct, but where he fails in that sentence is fully explaining why that is. Such as Religion is the Opium of the People, so are other ideologies. Animal Rights activists have a religious quality around them, and their meetings, and they want to simply lessen animal suffering. What is cynically worse, being implied by the comment is references to the past and present where Religion is very often used to exploit the masses, as a means of control. "You better do this and this, or the bogeyman gets you!", "if you work really really hard, the bogeyman will give you 70 virgins" and such-like.

[Kadagar_AV]

Beskar, you want a religious debate, FINE! :)

However, try to stay at least vaguely on topic. Or make a new thread. Or do it in PMs. Plenty of options feel free to pick one. I would however frown upon further trying to derail this thread. Specially as I already asked you once.

Dont get me wrong, I more than welcome a religious debate. As my OP shows. However, this is not the place for it, get my point?

[rotorgun]

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods.

Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply a construct. While you quoted ideas which are founded, how about all those ideas which failed? Why is the priority in your example placed on the successful idea "The world is not round" compared to the position of the catholic church "The world is flat".

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge, doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva who is from a far older religious order.

Also in the Christian faith, many of the routes while some in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism. I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rotor, I could most def argue against that.

But again, not the time, not the place.



PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG: Excellent points, well worth debating.

I can promise you that I will meet your points Rotorgun :)

But ONCE AGAIN, save it for the debate.

In a way, it is part my fault. Anything with religion in it is bound to draw some fire.

May I ask some mod to clean up a bit? :)

[rotorgun]

My most humble apologies Dear friend. I shall indeed await the proper time and place. A fascinating subject!

Thanks.