Quote from alfonso:Stu, I apologize for lumping you together with axeman and Gekko, but I need a third muskateer, and you were it.
I could explain why I don't believe religion is the open and shut case most atheists make it out to be and why I certainly do not consider atheism the intellectual slam dunk that atheists like to pretend it is. My question is, would you be willing to sit there discussing it? I can't "prove" to you I'm right, in fact in everything I've written about God here I've never tried to "prove" God at all. So there's nothing to fear. So if you're truly interested, why not set aside the compulsion to cut every line of inquiry off at the pass and talk the issues through to see where they lead. I could certainly take the time do that, but it's just so off-putting when you have to wade through axeman-like "red herring" restrictions on the scope of the discussion; they're clear signs that someone couldn't care less about understanding your point of view but in "winning" some debate they think is taking place.
alfonso,
No probs, but can I please be D'Artagnan. I think he was the youngest and had the biggest weapon.
I hear what you say. I do however think there are a couple of things you may be overlooking.
If most atheists consider atheism is the intellectual slam dunk of debate (I contest that is not the case and that is not what a-theism is about), inevitably the debate will also contain many 'statements of absolute' by theists.
I would think there would be a lot less barracking as such, if those of a religious bent would be as clear as you have been in your post above , that they are not asserting God exists but that God may exist.
First let me say that, of the examples you cite, surely you must agree to a point at least that axeman really does give some extremely eloquent and well laid out argument. Gordon Gekko raises very good points, even if rather energetically - you can't condemn someone for that. Yes there is the LMAO!!! but I have to laugh my arse off many times at GG or FPC or vinny nolan's etc outrageously irreverent comments.
I used to like reading Darkhorse's contributions very much too, as I felt he had a pleasant way of rambling
but very disapointed when he wrecked himself as did Optional777 in the God debates. You also have your Thunderbolts too, so you see, it works both ways. Bring back RS7 is what I say.
It is more interesting for me to read a debate which concentrates on both sides of an issue, but as axeman has pointed out in this thread, already there are theists jumping in turning attention away from the main questions being addressed. But yes I agree, it is distracting to have outright agression or evasion from either viewpoint.
Yes let's talk the issues through and see where they go, but let's define the issue and stick to the issue !! However don't expect me, (or others who have far better disputation skills) to be passive debaters. Early on in a thread somewhere Daniel_M once asked his
'opponent' to define God. A great starting point,, [paraphrasing] if you believe in God please explain what God is so I can understand... No definition of God was provided. I guess once you define God you are left open to have any definition queried, in the end that seems to lead inexorably to a blind faith conclusion.
I do not visit Elite everyday and I often find a discussion has moved a lot from where I last posted .I therefore tend to leave undone some responses I should make, but certainly I would like everyone to talk issues through as you suggest. I enjoy examining the contributions of many intelligent and thoughtful contributors on both sides of the debate and I will join in. Shoeshineboy seems to be willing to hold a more, should I say "reasoned" debate, so things are encouraging!
So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion
