Religious debate

**Kadagar_AV** · 05-26-2010, 04:59

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** · 05-26-2010, 08:23

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** · 05-26-2010, 09:40

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 05-26-2010, 10:07

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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** · 05-26-2010, 10:32

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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** · 05-26-2010, 10:46

Do we have any Deists here?

**Sigurd** · 05-26-2010, 11:34

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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:

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)