Agnosticism Vs. Atheism Vs. Theism

[Tsurmon]

This is my first proposal for a debate. I'm not sure I'm even ready for one, but I'd very much like to try.

The topic for this debate is to find out which is best, being an agnostic, athiest, or a theist. I will argue for agnosticism, but I'll need two other people to argue for the other sides.

Here is the format I propose.

4 rounds.

In the first round, one person gives their reasoning for their belief's superiority and then the other two refute it. Round 2 and 3 continue this.

Round four will be for closing thoughts or statements.

Since I'm new to this, I'd also like to request that I go last so that I might do my best to compete with the two other debators.

As for length of each statement, whatever works for my fellow debators is fine with me. Ditto on duration.

As for outside references, sure, I don't mind them, so long as they don't make a person's whole arguement.

So? Any takers?

[ZouPrime]

A lot of people around here will claim that agnosticism and theism/atheism aren't mutually exclusive (one can be both). There has been many, many threads on the subject in the last years; if you did not read them, I suggest you search in MRD.

[Agnostic Theist]

Of course, you could always debate the compatibility of agnosticism with atheism/theism, in terms of, can one be an agnostic theist or, whichn is more rational, or is the theist limited in the extent of their agnostic belief (claims)?

Or you could debate if atheism is better than theism, though I suspect sich a topic to be somwhat broad for formal debating.

[Jim Lazarus]

Well, right. Basic atheism and god-belief are the only two options - agnosticism can be either/or. But, you could say "Strong-Atheism vs. Agnosticism vs. Theism", with Agnosticism being agnostic atheism, and it would work.

If you do that, I'll be happy to represent the Strong-Atheist position.

You'll just need a theist. :-)

If you'll accept me as the Strong-Atheist opponent, I'll have a few suggestions for parameters. But I'll stay quiet on that subject until a decision is made on my participation.

Cool idea for a debate, btw.

- Laz

[Tsurmon]

Hmm...perhaps I'd better clarify my understanding of the 3.

Atheist--Believes there is no God.

Theist--Believes there is a God.

Agnostic--Believes niether side has proven it one way or the other and that no one knows which is correct.

I'd say more, but I'd like to save it for the debate.

[Jim Lazarus]

Hmm...perhaps I'd better clarify my understanding of the 3.

Atheist--Believes there is no God.

Theist--Believes there is a God.

Agnostic--Believes niether side has proven it one way or the other and that no one knows which is correct.

I'd say more, but I'd like to save it for the debate.

Okay, yeah - what you're proposing is fine, but you may need to note a couple things:

Atheism, commonly defined (and I'm sure you've heard this dozens of times before), is a lack of belief in a God or gods. Strong-Atheism builds on atheism's lack of belief and says "There is no God". Its a small but crucial distinction - the common or "Weak-Atheist" looks into his mind and finds no belief in God there, while a Strong-Atheist posits a positive claim about reality, saying "There is no God".

Agnosticism, being the position of being without knowledge, does not escape the atheism vs. theism debate. The agnostic either lacks belief in a God or gods due to a lack of knowledge, or does indeed personally believe a God exists while still simultaneously saying that he can never know that for sure.

Thus, and I think you agree and intend this, if the debate is "Strong-Atheism vs. Agnosticism (from the common atheistic standpoint) vs. Theism" - the debate will work fine.

Does this work for you?

- Laz

[Tsurmon]

Hard to say. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say that an agnostic has to pick a side. Atheists and Theists both have a firm belief that they are right, and an agnostic simply says that they could both be wrong? An agnostic can still have opionions, for instance I think there being no god is much more logical than there being a god, especially a christian one, but he/she still won't have an absolute belief.

Anyways, I think you'd be perfect for the debate, JLazarus, for the simple fact that you want to. Hehe, don't think I can be to picky...

[Jim Lazarus]

Regarding Agnosticism And The God-Question

The reason why an agnostic must choose between basic atheism and theism is because of the commonly used definition of atheism.

Considering that basic atheism is only a lack of belief, and not a position which asserts that God does not exist (which is actually Strong-Atheism), the agnostic - if he lacks a belief in a God, is an "agnostic atheist". If he has a belief in a god, then he is an agnostic theist. To say "I don't know" to God's existence still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the agnostic actually believes in the existence of a God or not. If the "I don't know" means that he doesn't have a positive belief in God's existence, then the agnostic is an agnostic atheist. If he doesn't know, but still has a personal faith - he's an agnostic theist.

Thus, agnosticism is not really a third alternative.

Hence why this debate would only work if it were "Strong Atheism vs. Agnostic Atheism/Theism vs. Theism".

Concerning My Suggestions For Debate Parameters

Topic: The God Question: Agnosticism, Strong-Atheism, And Theism

Maximum Word-Limit: 5,000 words, all posts.

Maximum Duration: 10 days.

Scope: Establishing which is the most justified position to hold to in regards to the existence of God.

Length Of The Debate:

Tsurmon's idea of observing one case at a time is a good one, although I would suggest that we lengthen the responses per case.

I suggest an outline like this:

Theism:

Opening Case
Rebuttal (Tsurman)
Rebuttal (J_Lazarus)
Theist's Response
Rebuttal (Tsurman)
Rebuttal (J_Lazarus)

Atheism:

Opening Case
Rebuttal (Tsurman)
Rebuttal (Theist)
J_Lazarus' Response
Rebuttal (Tsurman)
Rebuttal (Theist)

Agnosticism:

Opening Case
Rebuttal (Theist)
Rebuttal (J_lazarus)
Tsurman's Response
Rebuttal (Theist)
Rebuttal (J_Lazarus)


Concluding Statements - In Order Of Presentation (Theism, Atheism, and then Agnosticism)

Statements will be made in turn.

Quotes must not be more then 50% of the post

Starting Date: Whenever is most convenient to Tsurman and the third opponent

Regular debate format.

Does this look alright to you, Tsurman?

- Laz

[wiploc]

Hmm...perhaps I'd better clarify my understanding of the 3.

Atheist--Believes there is no God.

Theist--Believes there is a God.

Agnostic--Believes niether side has proven it one way or the other and that no one knows which is correct.

I'd say more, but I'd like to save it for the debate.

Tsurmon, given JLazarus' ownership of the terminology, perhaps you could draw up the debate topic without using any of the words, atheist, theist, or agnostic. Something like, "Which is most reasonable, belief that god exists, belief that god doesn't exist, or the lack of belief either way?"

Your proposed format is quite interesting. Another possible format would be simultaneous posting: each of you would submit an opening statement making the case for your position. When all three statements have been submitted, the moderator posts them all at once. One advantage of this system is that a four round debate could be knocked out in four weeks (assuming one week per post) instead of, what, ninteen weeks? for the other format.

I'd like to hear more about what you propose to defend. If you really hope to argue for something like, "God hasn't been proven to exist nor proven not to exist, so nobody knows for sure whether he does or not," then (unless you are referring to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god) the other players should concede now and go home. (If you are referring to the tri-omni god, then then it's the atheist who should stay to claim victory while the others go home.)

Can you define the agnostic position in a way that doesn't automatically give you the victory, that leaves something to be disputed? How about something like, which of these positions is most reasonable, (1) The most logical position is to believe that god does exist, (2) The most logical position is to believe god does not exist, or (3) The most logical position is not to form a belief either way.

crc

[Jim Lazarus]

Tsurmon, given JLazarus' ownership of the terminology, perhaps you could draw up the debate topic without using ...

lol, pshh, what-eh-vuh. =P

Your proposed format is quite interesting. Another possible format would be simultaneous posting: each of you would submit an opening statement making the case for your position. When all three statements have been submitted, the moderator posts them all at once. One advantage of this system is that a four round debate could be knocked out in four weeks (assuming one week per post) instead of, what, ninteen weeks? for the other format.

Good point, although I'd like a somewhat lengthened debate. I considered the idea of concurrent opening cases, but I think that'd look too messy for some reason. Hence - perhaps it'd be best if maximum duration between posts be shortened to a week......? It'd be lengthy, but not too long, in my view. But, this is Tsurman's proposal, after all - so its his view that holds primacy.

I'd like to hear more about what you propose to defend. If you really hope to argue for something like, "God hasn't been proven to exist nor proven not to exist, so nobody knows for sure whether he does or not," then (unless you are referring to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god) the other players should concede now and go home. (If you are referring to the tri-omni god, then then it's the atheist who should stay to claim victory while the others go home.)

I would tentatively suggest the Abrahamic view of God. Its the most common and defended, and doesn't discriminate too much as it is held by the most people (Jews, Christians, and Muslims).

Can you define the agnostic position in a way that doesn't automatically give you the victory, that leaves something to be disputed? How about something like, which of these positions is most reasonable, (1) The most logical position is to believe that god does exist, (2) The most logical position is to believe god does not exist, or (3) The most logical position is not to form a belief either way.

crc

I like that, yeah.

Of course, none of my considerations really need be given too much significance - as said, this is Tsurman's proposed debate, so it comes down to his approval or disapproval.

- Laz

[Jim Lazarus]

If my math is right, my proposed outline will make for a 12 week debate.

What I didn't say, and what I should've, is that while statements will be made generally in turn - the two rebuttals per each positive case might be better posted concurrently.

Okay, time for me to shut up now. I'm hogging the thread.

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

I love this idea. I would like to hear more. I am new to this but it is a very interesting idea. I wouldn't mind taking the theist position. Let us hear more if you don't mind.

[Tsurmon]

I was at my parent's house and they have no clue about this site and...eh, why should I bother telling you guys?

Anyway's, Wiploc, your simultaneous posting format seems fine, and arguing which is more logical seems good too.

RaviZachariasFan, you said your new, and normally I'd hold out for a veteran...but, I"m probably just as new to this site as you so, sounds good to me. Just hope we can hold a candle to the more experianced JLazarus...

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi folks. Here's just a summary of what we've got so far. Feel free to suggest any amendments. Looks like an interesting setup anyway. :) If some of you aren't really too familiar with how "concurrent" statements work, you can find more about it from FDP Rules & Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85870).

1) The topic of the debate.

The God Question: Agnosticism, Strong-Atheism, And Theism

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Tsurmon for agnosticism, JLazarus for strong atheism and RaviZachariasFan for theism.

3) The scope of the debate.

Three debate proponents will attempt to philosophically justify their perspectives regarding the existence of God. "God" refers to commonly held belief of the Abrahamic monotheistic deity. Agnosticism (a form of "weak atheism") will refer to view that neither strong atheism or theism can be proven one way or the other conclusively. Strong atheism posits a positive claim about reality, saying "there is no God" or the denial of the existence of God. Theism posits that God exists. Each debater will have the opportunity to present arguments for their respective postions and attempt to rebut the other positions. The positions are summarized as follows:

(1) Theism: the most logical position is to believe that God exists, (2) Strong atheism: the most logical position is to believe that God does not exist, or (3) Agnosticism: the most logical position is not to form a belief either way.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

7 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Both (see #10)

6) The maximum length of each statement.

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Quotes from sources not greater than 50% of the statement.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Unknown.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate format will include three proponents instead of the traditional two. Each participant will take a different position from the others and argue their respective cases. The debate will be in both turns and concurrent posts in the following way:

Part 1: The case for theism

- Opening Case (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & JLazarus)
- Theist's Response (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & JLazarus)

Part 2: The case for strong atheism

- Opening Case (JLazarus)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)
- Atheist's Response (JLazarus)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 3: The case for agnosticism

- Opening Case (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (JLazarus & RaviZachariasFan)
- Agnostic's Response (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (JLazarus & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 4: Concluding statements

- Concluding statement for theism (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concluding statement for strong atheism (JLazarus)
- Concluding statement for agnosticism (Tsurmon)

[Jim Lazarus]

Everything looks fine to me - Ravi and Tsurmon, do you guys feel the debate parameters are satisfactory?

If so, I suppose all we'll need it this:

9) The starting date of the debate.

Unknown.


Ravi has said that he is new to "this" (whether "this" means formal debating or the area of theistic vs atheistic apologetics in general, I'm unsure), and considering such perhaps he'd like a few weeks to prepare a strategy of those arguments that he feels strongest?

I'm free until January =P, heheh . You guys can schedule it for whenever is the most convenient.

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

I have a small question about the scope here and what exactly the agnostic has to say. I mean obviously God can't be proven or disproven. I am wondering is the agnostic going to have to claim that his position is the most rational as well. My concern is that if he can simply say they can't prove anything then yes on pure physical evidence you can't "prove" God.

I am new to the debate scenario but I would still like to have as good of a chance as possible. :)

[Jim Lazarus]

I was actually thinking about that too, Ravi - but as Tsurmon was the one who originally proposed the debate, I feel confident that he does indeed have a positive case to submit on why a conclusion for the god-question is at this time unwarranted.

But, we'll see what he says.

- Laz

[Tsurmon]

Everything seems fine to me. I guess we can start whenever you like.

Ravi, my position will be that agnosticism is the most logical choice, not the one with the most evidence.

[wiploc]

I have a small question about the scope here and what exactly the agnostic has to say. I mean obviously God can't be proven or disproven. I am wondering is the agnostic going to have to claim that his position is the most rational as well. My concern is that if he can simply say they can't prove anything then yes on pure physical evidence you can't "prove" God.

I am new to the debate scenario but I would still like to have as good of a chance as possible. :)


This atheist spectator is hoping that you and JLazarus will hold out for a resolution that clearly gives the agnostic as much burden as the theist and atheist. If this is the definition of agnosticism ...


Agnosticism will refer to view that neither strong atheism or theism can be proven one way or the other conclusively.


... then you have already conceded by saying, "... obviously God can't be proven or disproven."

This part seems to me to be perfectly fair and impartial:


(1) Theism: the most logical position is to believe that God exists, (2) Strong atheism: the most logical position is to believe that God does not exist, or (3) Agnosticism: the most logical position is not to form a belief either way.


Maybe you could just do away with this part:

Agnosticism will refer to view that neither strong atheism or theism can be proven one way or the other conclusively. Strong atheism posits a positive claim about reality, saying "there is no God" or the denial of the existence of God. Theism posits that God exists.

Hope I'm not butting in where I'm not wanted.:o

crc

[Common_Cents]

This atheist spectator is hoping that you and JLazarus will hold out for a resolution that clearly gives the agnostic as much burden as the theist and atheist. If this is the definition of agnosticism ...



... then you have already conceded by saying, "... obviously God can't be proven or disproven."

This part seems to me to be perfectly fair and impartial:



Maybe you could just do away with this part:



Hope I'm not butting in where I'm not wanted.:o

crc


No you are not butting in as far as I am concerned.


I am new to this so suggestions are welcome.

I don't think our agnostic friend is trying to hoodwink anyone...I merely would like to frame the debate for all sides to start on level ground. I am sure I'll dig enough of a hole on my own. :D

[Jim Lazarus]

No Wiploc - I entirely agree. Agnosticism in this debate looks like its gonna be a positive position - and thus the burden of proof falls upon it just as much as my position and Ravi's.

Tsurmon could argue quite a few things - the fallibility of man, various arguments from skepticism, etc., as well as attempting to refute both Ravi's particular case and my own.

Is this what you had planned, Tsurmon? Some positive evidence for the agnostic position along similar lines?

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

Everything seems fine to me. I guess we can start whenever you like.

Ravi, my position will be that agnosticism is the most logical choice, not the one with the most evidence.

Well I mean I think any rational person will have to concede that evidence proving or disproving God is not around. So in the debate is that an issue we are going to discuss?


I don't mean to sound stupid but I am a little fuzzy about what scope we are dealing with. You don't seem to be discussing which one is factually sound. Are we debating which one is most advantageous for personal life?

As I said I don't think you are trying to hook anybody here I would just like to be clear on what hole I'm jumping into. :)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Well I mean I think any rational person will have to concede that evidence proving or disproving God is not around. So in the debate is that an issue we are going to discuss?


Perhaps the question can be posited as "which position is the more reasonable to accept?"

[Common_Cents]

Perhaps the question can be posited as "which position is the more reasonable to accept?"


Well then couldn't it be argued that way about how reasonable would require evidence?

[Jim Lazarus]

Need a date. I think it should be Ravi's decision, since he's going first.

What do you say?

- Laz

[Tsurmon]

fine with me.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Ravi, feel free to suggest any date that's convenient for you, if you agree with all of the parameters and still wish to go first. Keep in mind that you don't have to post on the official start date. You'll have a week to post it.

Before we do that though, I sense that we're still not in agreement on the scope of the debate regarding evidence, reasoning, etc. Ravi, what would you prefer the requirements to be for each debater when they present their positions? In other words, how would you like to frame the wording of the debate? What potential problems do you foresee that you wish to avoid?

Once you're all in agreement with the scope and start date then we can make it official. :)

Jason

[Common_Cents]

Ravi, feel free to suggest any date that's convenient for you, if you agree with all of the parameters and still wish to go first. Keep in mind that you don't have to post on the official start date. You'll have a week to post it.

Before we do that though, I sense that we're still not in agreement on the scope of the debate regarding evidence, reasoning, etc. Ravi, what would you prefer the requirements to be for each debater when they present their positions? In other words, how would you like to frame the wording of the debate? What potential problems do you foresee that you wish to avoid?

Once you're all in agreement with the scope and start date then we can make it official. :)

Jason

Well I first would like to say that it certainly isn't my agenda to frame the debate unilaterally. I am honored to be allowed a voice. However there are a few things upon which I am little confused. I am new to the debate scene here but it seems to me that it is always advantageous to make the debate as narrow as possible. So here are my question I pose to the mods and to my esteemed colleagues. Just so I am clear as to what I am debating.


I think it is fair to say that neither of my colleagues are wanting to argue that no physical proof of God exists so my question is what are we debating? Am I debating that theism is a more rational worldview in the sense of how it helps someone deal with/cope with life personally? Or are we saying which one is more acceptable and advantageous for a society? I am a little fuzzy on this. Is it neither of those or both?

I am sorry if these points have been cleared up and I am just not getting it. I just want to be sure here. :) :)


As to who goes first....Do I have to? :D

[Jim Lazarus]

I think it is fair to say that neither of my colleagues are wanting to argue that no physical proof of God exists so my question is what are we debating? Am I debating that theism is a more rational worldview in the sense of how it helps someone deal with/cope with life personally? Or are we saying which one is more acceptable and advantageous for a society? I am a little fuzzy on this. Is it neither of those or both?

I am sorry if these points have been cleared up and I am just not getting it. I just want to be sure here.


As to who goes first....Do I have to?

We're arguing from an epistemic standpoint. What position is most rational to uphold as concerned with knowledge/probability - A belief that God exists, a view that God does not exist - or to not form an opinion on the matter either way?

I don't think beneficial reasons such as "what is most advantageous for society" should be considered. The question is of how we should view "God"'s existence from a standpoint of our current knowledge and understanding of God, the universe, man, etc. etc.

lol - I would suggest you go first, because an opening positive case for God would be a better introduction to the debate then an opening negative. From my view, anyway - others might have a different suggestion.

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

We're arguing from an epistemic standpoint. What position is most rational to uphold as concerned with knowledge/probability - A belief that God exists, a view that God does not exist - or to not form an opinion on the matter either way?

I don't think beneficial reasons such as "what is most advantageous for society" should be considered. The question is of how we should view "God"'s existence from a standpoint of our current knowledge and understanding of God, the universe, man, etc. etc.

lol - I would suggest you go first, because an opening positive case for God would be a better introduction to the debate then an opening negative. From my view, anyway - others might have a different suggestion.

- Laz

Knowledge/Probability? Isn't that evidential? I mean I freely admit that physical proof for God is lacking.

[Tsurmon]

I agree. I think we should try and be a little broad on this subject. Which is better and why? What benefits does a person gain by belonging to one or the other? Things like that.

[Jim Lazarus]

Knowledge/Probability? Isn't that evidential? I mean I freely admit that physical proof for God is lacking.

Sure, or you could go via the presuppositionalist route, heh. Also I don't see why it would necessarily have to be physical proof? The ontological argument attempts to establish God's existence a priori - and as just said, TAG is quite the opposite of the common evidentialist's method.

I agree. I think we should try and be a little broad on this subject. Which is better and why? What benefits does a person gain by belonging to one or the other? Things like that.

Well, to be truthful, I think the subject is gonna be rather broad already. The question of the existence of a god is a major one and encompasses alot of intellectual material. It'll be a challenge just meeting this particular subject sufficiently rather than discussing further beneficial reasons for belief or non-belief also.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure I would say atheism offers any beneficial reasons for its position other than considering epistemic reasons as being also beneficial in nature. Most atheists embrace their lack of belief or disbelief on an entirely epistemic basis - considering their duties with finding the truth about the world and universe around them, rather than whether or not such and such belief is gonna make them feel warm and tingly inside.

I think beneficial reasons should only be considered secondary. To explain, my sole argument for atheism being beneficial would be that it is true - but that would reduce to a discussion about whether or not it actually is true, and thus we can see that there would exist an epistemic primacy in such a discussion, and that what makes us feel better, etc. only becomes relevant after we have established that particular competing X and B beliefs are justified in being held to in the first place, on the basis of them being factual in nature (at least as far as we can possibly tell).

I also don't see any beneficial reasons rising from an "I don't know" position, such as the kind Tsurmon holds to, other than it being arguably most honest with what we are epistemically warranted in doing/believing at this particular moment in time.

There are certainly a large number of beneficial reasons for theism, however. Emotional comfort and security, a belief in immortality and paradise, a belief in an ultimate loving being that wants the best for you, - that you are never truly alone, that everything has objective purpose, value, and design, etc. It also promotes community growth - I'd hardly say that once the word "God" becomes insignificant to the considerations of philosophers and common day individuals that their atheism would play a factor in promoting any sort of community.

So, really, I would feel that making beneficial reasons significantly relevant to the debate would only extend a broad subject even further (unnecessarily so), to include considerations that only become important after we have considered the core subjects at hand from a necessary stance of epistemic primacy. Further, I would say that atheism has nothing to offer from this perspective, my already controversial claim that it is beneficial because it is true notwithstanding.

So here we run into problems - Ravi lacks confidence in theism from an epistemic perspective, and I lack confidence in atheism as a sufficient provider from a solely beneficial perspective, although I have here argued that "beneficial reasons" should only play a secondary role.

Any suggestions?

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

Sure, or you could go via the presuppositionalist route, heh. Also I don't see why it would necessarily have to be physical proof? The ontological argument attempts to establish God's existence a priori - and as just said, TAG is quite the opposite of the common evidentialist's method.



Well, to be truthful, I think the subject is gonna be rather broad already. The question of the existence of a god is a major one and encompasses alot of intellectual material. It'll be a challenge just meeting this particular subject sufficiently rather than discussing further beneficial reasons for belief or non-belief also.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure I would say atheism offers any beneficial reasons for its position other than considering epistemic reasons as being also beneficial in nature. Most atheists embrace their lack of belief or disbelief on an entirely epistemic basis - considering their duties with finding the truth about the world and universe around them, rather than whether or not such and such belief is gonna make them feel warm and tingly inside.

I think beneficial reasons should only be considered secondary. To explain, my sole argument for atheism being beneficial would be that it is true - but that would reduce to a discussion about whether or not it actually is true, and thus we can see that there would exist an epistemic primacy in such a discussion, and that what makes us feel better, etc. only becomes relevant after we have established that particular competing X and B beliefs are justified in being held to in the first place, on the basis of them being factual in nature (at least as far as we can possibly tell).

I also don't see any beneficial reasons rising from an "I don't know" position, such as the kind Tsurmon holds to, other than it being arguably most honest with what we are epistemically warranted in doing/believing at this particular moment in time.

There are certainly a large number of beneficial reasons for theism, however. Emotional comfort and security, a belief in immortality and paradise, a belief in an ultimate loving being that wants the best for you, - that you are never truly alone, that everything has objective purpose, value, and design, etc. It also promotes community growth - I'd hardly say that once the word "God" becomes insignificant to the considerations of philosophers and common day individuals that their atheism would play a factor in promoting any sort of community.

So, really, I would feel that making beneficial reasons significantly relevant to the debate would only extend a broad subject even further (unnecessarily so), to include considerations that only become important after we have considered the core subjects at hand from a necessary stance of epistemic primacy. Further, I would say that atheism has nothing to offer from this perspective, my already controversial claim that it is beneficial because it is true notwithstanding.

So here we run into problems - Ravi lacks confidence in theism from an epistemic perspective, and I lack confidence in atheism as a sufficient provider from a solely beneficial perspective, although I have here argued that "beneficial reasons" should only play a secondary role.

Any suggestions?

- Laz


Great points on all accounts. We need to compromise here. If we are to say that this is what is more rational to believe based on all that we know to this point. I think the agnostic is your winner. On a pure rational basis of what do you know the truth is we don't KNOW anything. On a pure evidential fact exploration you have to say "I don't know" that is in all honesty. As you masterfully put it on a beneficial basis theism is a clear winner. Since perception is reality to most people whether or not it is "true" doesn't really hurt it's beneficial contribution. Not to say that I think theism is a mass delusion...I am just saying that theism right or wrong is the most beneficial. It would seem to me that it isn't fair to frame the debate in either way.


As to suggestions I don't know...:D


I think you are spot on. This debate is going to be broad no matter what. So we need to narrow it as much as possible while simaltaneously protecting all three members of the debate. I have no wish to corner either of you into "MY" debate and I know that neither of you want an unfair advantage.


Here is my suggestion. Perhaps we need a new theist that doesn't mind jumping into the epistemic argument. I am not the smartest person on the planet. Perhaps a theist here sees this and wants in and thinks I am a jobber in the way. :D He is probably right. So if a theist here thinks that they can take the epistemic argument and work their magic I will stand aside. I think that I am the one holding up the debate and I apologize to everyone involved that I am holding it up.


JLaz your post was great and spot on. Good job. I would think that a debate with you would be eye opening and even if I don't get the honor of losing to you I look forward to reading your debates.

Tsurmon, I am sorry for holding up this great idea. This will be an interesting meeting of the minds. If only because from a selfish POV I think the agnostic poses far more problems to the strong atheist than it does to the theist. :D :D

[Tsurmon]

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Since I'm agnostic, I can forget all the evidence of whether or not there is a god and attack each religion where it hurts the most...hehe

Anyways, if you wish to drop out of the debate, that would be fine with me I suppose.

This problem of forming a debate proposal might even be more interesting than the debate itself, come to think of it...

[Common_Cents]

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Since I'm agnostic, I can forget all the evidence of whether or not there is a god and attack each religion where it hurts the most...hehe

Anyways, if you wish to drop out of the debate, that would be fine with me I suppose.

This problem of forming a debate proposal might even be more interesting than the debate itself, come to think of it...


:D Well the thing is that atheists in my experience say that I am hanging on with blind faith...then an agnostic comes along and says that the atheist too is going on faith just faith that God doesn't exist.


I don't want to hold up the debate. If a theist is happy to take my place I will stand aside. Although as of yet no one seems to have volunteered.

[wiploc]

If we are to say that this is what is more rational to believe based on all that we know to this point. I think the agnostic is your winner. On a pure rational basis of what do you know the truth is we don't KNOW anything. On a pure evidential fact exploration you have to say "I don't know" that is in all honesty. As you masterfully put it on a beneficial basis theism is a clear winner.

Are you saying that you have no reason to believe in god? Is your decision to believe arbitrary and indefensible? Or is it something that a reasonable person could do?

Does it make more sense to say,
1. "Granted, I can't really prove that there is a god, but I still have sound reasons for believing in him," or to say,
2. "Granted, many (perhaps all?) justified beliefs are based on less than certainty, but the belief in the Christian god is not a justified belief. Example of a reasonable belief based on less than certainty: The sun will rise tomorrow. Example of an unreasonable belief based on less than certainty: as of noon, GMT, on August 3 of this year, the number of pies baked in the history of the world was an odd number. Believing in the Christian god is more like believing in an odd number of pies than it is like believing the sun will come up."

If you take position 1 rather than position 2, I don't see why you can't defend that position in this debate, if you want to.



...I am just saying that theism right or wrong is the most beneficial.

Maybe this is a subject for a different debate, but you've got me curious.

crc

[Bill]

I can't allow this to escape my noting that its impossible to have a debate between a theist, atheist, and agnostic without first defining exactly what the word "god" is intended to mean. My reference for this requirement is about halfway through Professor Ted Drange's Essay Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html) where he says this: It is to be borne in mind here that each category is relative to a particular interpretation of a sentence of the type "God exists," A person may be in one category relative to one interpretation (or one sense of the word "God"), but in a different category relative to another interpretation.

To illustrate these distinctions, consider the following four responses to a request for a definition of the term "God": God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe whose highest goal regarding humans is that they believe that he has a son who died for them so that they might obtain salvation.

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.) Now suppose there were a philosopher who examined these four responses. When asked the question "does God exist?" he might very well respond as follows: In the case of God1, yes, God definitely exists, for it is obvious that the universe [or love] exists. In the case of God2, I understand the question but have no answer to it since the evidence is insufficient. In the case of God3, there is good evidence that such a being does not exist, for most humans do not believe in his son, etc., yet, if such a being were to exist, then probably he would have done things to cause them to have the given belief. And in the case of God4, I do not understand the question. Since no definition of "God4" has been given, the sentence "God4 exists" expresses no proposition whatever. Given this response, we should say of such a philosopher that he is a theist relative to God1, an agnostic relative to God2, an atheist relative to God3, and a noncognitivist relative to God4. I would say that these answers to the four "does God exist?" questions are reasonable, though they are not necessarily the correct (or "best") answers. To illustrate further, I am personally an atheist with respect to the folks who claim "Jesus is God." I absolutely, completely, and firmly disbelieve that the "Jesus is God" exists as God (Jesus might exist as an historical person; or he might not; but that isn't the topic of the proposed debate). However, I am in general an agnostic, particularly for "God is the first cause" or similar sorts of god definitions.

I just skimmed this thread, and I find the definition of "god" to be totally lacking; or woefully inadequately defined. You may well wish to remedy this matter before you begin.

== Bill

[Common_Cents]

Are you saying that you have no reason to believe in god? Is your decision to believe arbitrary and indefensible? Or is it something that a reasonable person could do?

Does it make more sense to say,
1. "Granted, I can't really prove that there is a god, but I still have sound reasons for believing in him," or to say,
2. "Granted, many (perhaps all?) justified beliefs are based on less than certainty, but the belief in the Christian god is not a justified belief. Example of a reasonable belief based on less than certainty: The sun will rise tomorrow. Example of an unreasonable belief based on less than certainty: as of noon, GMT, on August 3 of this year, the number of pies baked in the history of the world was an odd number. Believing in the Christian god is more like believing in an odd number of pies than it is like believing the sun will come up."

If you take position 1 rather than position 2, I don't see why you can't defend that position in this debate, if you want to.





Maybe this is a subject for a different debate, but you've got me curious.

crc


It is number 1. Granted I can't prove God but I have sound reason to believe that he exists. It is personal and deals with my experience however and not really something up for debate unless personal stories are basis for debate.

[Common_Cents]

I can't allow this to escape my noting that its impossible to have a debate between a theist, atheist, and agnostic without first defining exactly what the word "god" is intended to mean. My reference for this requirement is about halfway through Professor Ted Drange's Essay Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html) where he says this: To illustrate further, I am personally an atheist with respect to the folks who claim "Jesus is God." I absolutely, completely, and firmly disbelieve that the "Jesus is God" exists as God (Jesus might exist as an historical person; or he might not; but that isn't the topic of the proposed debate). However, I am in general an agnostic, particularly for "God is the first cause" or similar sorts of god definitions.

I just skimmed this thread, and I find the definition of "god" to be totally lacking; or woefully inadequately defined. You may well wish to remedy this matter before you begin.

== Bill

I thought that Tsrumon said that this was based on the Abrahamic God.

[Bill]

I thought that Tsrumon said that this was based on the Abrahamic God. Ahh. I must have missed that. (I said I was just skimming.)

Anyway, if it is the God of Abraham, I hope that somebody will bring up my essay on that topic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html). :D

== Bill

[Common_Cents]

Ahh. I must have missed that. (I said I was just skimming.)

Anyway, if it is the God of Abraham, I hope that somebody will bring up my essay on that topic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html). :D

== Bill


Well I don't know if I will mention it but I will read it. :thumbs:

[wiploc]

You can still go two-way, agnostic vs. atheist.

crc

[Tsurmon]

That sounds good.

[Jim Lazarus]

I'll work on finding a theist within the next week. If I can't find one of worth, we can do just agnostic vs. atheist, sure.

- Laz

[wiploc]

Do you guys want a judge? You could post simultaneously, and then I (as judge) could say what lines of argument were strong, and what lines of argument needed help. And then we could do another round.

This would be experimental; I haven't seen it done, but I'm interested in how it would work out. You should only use me as the judge if you both think I'm a reasonable easy-to-get-along-with guy.

crc

[Jim Lazarus]

Wiploc:

Certainly sounds like an interesting proposal. I'd be up for it, sure.

- Laz

[Tsurmon]

I've no problem with it. In fact, might help things go a bit easier.

[Common_Cents]

Wiploc:

Certainly sounds like an interesting proposal. I'd be up for it, sure.

- Laz


Have you not found a theist? My schedule is kind of cluttered but I have told a few people about the idea....as I said I would do it but under the current parameters I don't know if I would be effective enough to be relevant.

[wiploc]

Shall we wait for a theist, or get this show on the road?

crc

[Jim Lazarus]

Unfortunately, all of my theist friends are extremely busy with college and ministry at the moment.

Ravi - I still think you'd be good for it. You said your schedule is a bit cluttered, but that you'd be willing. So - what do you think?

Wiploc: If we have the three way, we're gonna go through all three cases first and then you'll post a final concluding analysis about the debate itself and declare whose case was most effective, right?

- Laz

[Common_Cents]

Unfortunately, all of my theist friends are extremely busy with college and ministry at the moment.

Ravi - I still think you'd be good for it. You said your schedule is a bit cluttered, but that you'd be willing. So - what do you think?

Wiploc: If we have the three way, we're gonna go through all three cases first and then you'll post a final concluding analysis about the debate itself and declare whose case was most effective, right?

- Laz


Well I do have a bit of a cluttered schedule but I am up for it. I just want to see this happen.

I'll tell you what. Let's lay out the parameters and let's get this thing set up. I'll do it to the best of my ability. Looking forward to it.

[wiploc]

Wiploc: If we have the three way, we're gonna go through all three cases first and then you'll post a final concluding analysis about the debate itself and declare whose case was most effective, right?

- Laz

I was thinking that the three of you would do simultaneous posts, and then I would do a judges call, something like:

"Player One, I don't understand your case; are you saying X? Player Two, your case is unassailable, but it isn't what the other guys are talking about. Do you choose to claim the undisputed victory and retire, or would you rather join with the disputed issues? Player Three, your runners are being blocked on the ground, but it looks like you have a pass receiver in the clear."

Then you would all simulateously post your second round posts, with benefit of knowing how you were coming across.

Then we could do one more round like that if we wanted, and then I would announce who had gained the most yardage and why that did or didn't amount to a touchdown.

We shouldn't have many rounds since this is an experimental format. I hope it will be great, but we have to be open to the possibility that we won't like it.

crc

[Common_Cents]

I was thinking that the three of you would do simultaneous posts, and then I would do a judges call, something like:

"Player One, I don't understand your case; are you saying X? Player Two, your case is unassailable, but it isn't what the other guys are talking about. Do you choose to claim the undisputed victory and retire, or would you rather join with the disputed issues? Player Three, your runners are being blocked on the ground, but it looks like you have a pass receiver in the clear."

Then you would all simulateously post your second round posts, with benefit of knowing how you were coming across.

Then we could do one more round like that if we wanted, and then I would announce who had gained the most yardage and why that did or didn't amount to a touchdown.

We shouldn't have many rounds since this is an experimental format. I hope it will be great, but we have to be open to the possibility that we won't like it.

crc


I very much approve of your idea. Especially you giving me feedback on my initial post so that I can improve and hone this to the audience. Great ideas.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I was thinking that the three of you would do simultaneous posts, and then I would do a judges call, something like:

"Player One, I don't understand your case; are you saying X? Player Two, your case is unassailable, but it isn't what the other guys are talking about. Do you choose to claim the undisputed victory and retire, or would you rather join with the disputed issues? Player Three, your runners are being blocked on the ground, but it looks like you have a pass receiver in the clear."

Then you would all simulateously post your second round posts, with benefit of knowing how you were coming across.

Then we could do one more round like that if we wanted, and then I would announce who had gained the most yardage and why that did or didn't amount to a touchdown.

We shouldn't have many rounds since this is an experimental format. I hope it will be great, but we have to be open to the possibility that we won't like it.

crc

Hi wiploc,

I'm somewhat wary about this format. I was willing grant a three way multi-participant debate (debating 3 different positions), but a fourth person getting involved each round begins to look like a 4 way MP. All it takes is one person to mess things up, much like what happened here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=64634). With 4 people involved, that increases the chances people will want extensions, miss deadlines, making it a real pain to moderate (and frustrating the other participants as well). I can tolerate three participants, but once it gets more than that, it can get really ugly. :banghead:

I think the peanut gallery would be a better venue to offer your summary of the debaters' responses. Or perhaps I can make an exception, and you could post a final concluding statement at the end of the debate offering a summary of the whole thing.

Jason

[wiploc]

I'll bow out then, as long as there are three other participants.

crc

[Jim Lazarus]

I think the peanut gallery would be a better venue to offer your summary of the debaters' responses. Or perhaps I can make an exception, and you could post a final concluding statement at the end of the debate offering a summary of the whole thing.

Jason

That's what I originally thought wiploc meant.

Wiploc: How's about this - what if you and I switch places? You can participate in the three way, and then I'll post a final concluding statement providing a summary and review, declaring who had the most compelling arguments.

It would be a convenience to me, too - because I've currently been asked to refine a few new atheological arguments, and so I'll be at work studying them and brainstorming extensions, etc. So, I don't mind the idea of being judge, rather than participant, in this one.

Are you up for it?

- Laz

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

That's what I originally thought wiploc meant.

Wiploc: How's about this - what if you and I switch places? You can participate in the three way, and then I'll post a final concluding statement providing a summary and review, declaring who had the most compelling arguments.

It would be a convenience to me, too - because I've currently been asked to refine a few new atheological arguments, and so I'll be at work studying them and brainstorming extensions, etc. So, I don't mind the idea of being judge, rather than participant, in this one.

Are you up for it?

- Laz

On second thought, I think the "judge" might be best placed in the peanut galllery rather than a concluding statement as well. Besides, would you really want to remain silent about the progress of the debate until the very end? :)

Here's where we left off before regarding the parameters (replacing JLazarus with wiploc). So if any of you would like to clarify or amend parameters, please go ahead. :)


1) The topic of the debate.

The God Question: Agnosticism, Strong-Atheism, And Theism

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Tsurmon for agnosticism, wiploc for strong atheism and RaviZachariasFan for theism.

3) The scope of the debate.

Three debate proponents will attempt to philosophically justify their perspectives regarding the existence of God. "God" refers to commonly held belief of the Abrahamic monotheistic deity. Agnosticism (a form of "weak atheism") will refer to view that neither strong atheism or theism can be proven one way or the other conclusively. Strong atheism posits a positive claim about reality, saying "there is no God" or the denial of the existence of God. Theism posits that God exists. Each debater will have the opportunity to present arguments for their respective positions and attempt to rebut the other positions. The positions are summarized as follows:

(1) Theism: the most logical position is to believe that God exists, (2) Strong atheism: the most logical position is to believe that God does not exist, or (3) Agnosticism: the most logical position is not to form a belief either way.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

7 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Both (see #10)

6) The maximum length of each statement.

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Quotes from sources not greater than 50% of the statement.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Unknown.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate format will include three proponents instead of the traditional two. Each participant will take a different position from the others and argue their respective cases. The debate will be in both turns and concurrent posts in the following way:

Part 1: The case for theism

- Opening Case (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & wiploc)
- Theist's Response (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & wiploc)

Part 2: The case for strong atheism

- Opening Case (wiploc)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)
- Atheist's Response (wiploc)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 3: The case for agnosticism

- Opening Case (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (wiploc & RaviZachariasFan)
- Agnostic's Response (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (wiploc & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 4: Concluding statements

- Concluding statement for theism (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concluding statement for strong atheism (wiploc)
- Concluding statement for agnosticism (Tsurmon)

[Common_Cents]

One question:

When they rebut my arguments do I rebut each one seperately or in one rebuttal of both posts?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

One question:

When they rebut my arguments do I rebut each one seperately or in one rebuttal of both posts?

As I understand it, the way the parameters are set up, you would respond to both wiploc and Tsurmon in the "Theist's Response" post (not 2 separate posts).

[wiploc]

Part 1: The case for theism

- Opening Case (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & wiploc)
- Theist's Response (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & wiploc)

Part 2: The case for strong atheism

- Opening Case (wiploc)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)
- Atheist's Response (wiploc)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (Tsurmon & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 3: The case for agnosticism

- Opening Case (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (wiploc & RaviZachariasFan)
- Agnostic's Response (Tsurmon)
- Concurrent Rebuttals (wiploc & RaviZachariasFan)

Part 4: Concluding statements

- Concluding statement for theism (RaviZachariasFan)
- Concluding statement for strong atheism (wiploc)
- Concluding statement for agnosticism (Tsurmon)[/I]

I don't want to be difficult; if the above is how you guys want to do this, then I'll do it that way---but I don't see the appeal of, essentially, repeating the entire debate three times. Seems to me it will get really redundant and boring.

I suggest either of these formats:

- Simultaineous posting of round one statements.
- Simultaineous posting of round two statements.
- Simultaineous posting of final statements.

or

- Theist 1st post
- Agnostic 1st post
- Atheist 1st post
- Theist 2nd post
- Agnostic 2nd post
- Atheist 2nd post
- Theist 3rd post
- Agnostic 3rd post
- Atheist 3rd post

If y'all don't like the order I've put us in, we could have the moderator flip a coin to determine order.

What say you?

crc

[Common_Cents]

I like simultaineous myself.

[wiploc]

I like simultaineous myself.
That's my first choice too.

crc

[wiploc]

I thing we're alone here; Tsurmon last posted eight days ago. Ravi, do you want to go without him?

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I thing we're alone here; Tsurmon last posted eight days ago. Ravi, do you want to go without him?

crc

I'd suggest sending Tsurmon a PM first. I'm sure that he would still be interested.

[Common_Cents]

I thing we're alone here; Tsurmon last posted eight days ago. Ravi, do you want to go without him?

crc


Well to be honest I was loving the whole idea of the 3 perspectives. We should PM the debate proposer first however. Maybe another agnostic would take his place if he is out.

[wiploc]

I PMed him.

crc

[Tsurmon]

Sorry for that hiatus. My pc was disconnected from the internet for what seems like forever. Yes, i'm still interested in debating.

[wiploc]

Welcome Back, Tsurmon! :)

Do these rules appeal to everybody? I made substantial revisions. The, "because it is probably true," bits are intended to eliminate silly arguments like Pascale's Wager, or like the argument that it is better to be an atheist because then you can rape and pillage---not that either of those arguments work, but this way they don't even come up. I added a forth round, since since we are no longer planning to have the experimental format involving a judge. I cut the post length to 2000 words because, well, because even 2000 seems long, and 5000 is likely to seem long, tedious, boring, disorganized, and incoherant. But I'm flexible on that point. On the other points too, for that matter. I also took out any suggestion that the atheist might have to make "a positive claim about reality" that the other players don't have to make.

How does this read to y'all:

1) The topic of the debate.

The God Question: Agnosticism, Strong-Atheism, And Theism

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Tsurmon for agnosticism, wiploc for strong atheism and RaviZachariasFan for theism.

3) The scope of the debate.

Three debate proponents will attempt to philosophically justify their perspectives regarding the existence of God. "God" refers to commonly held belief of the Abrahamic monotheistic deity. The theist will argue that it makes more sense to believe---because it is probably true---that such a god exists. The atheist will argue that it makes more sense to believe---because it is probably true---that god such a god doesn't exist. The agnostic will argue that---since neither the theist or atheist positions have logical merit---it makes more sense to simply not have an opinion on the question of whether such a god exists. Each debater will have the opportunity to present arguments for their respective positions and attempt to rebut the other positions. The positions are summarized as follows:

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

4 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Simultaneous postings: All three parties will submit their posts. When all three are submitted, the moderator will publish them.

6) The maximum length of each statement.

2000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Quotes from sources not greater than 50% of the statement.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Friday, September 31.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate format will include three proponents instead of the traditional two. Each participant will take a different position from the others and argue their respective cases. The debate will be in concurrent posts:

Part 1: Opening statements.

Part 2: First Responses.

Part 3: Second Responses.

Part 4: Concluding statements

[Tsurmon]

Nice. I think I can work with that. So, do you want our opening responses in on friday, or a week from friday?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Nice. I think I can work with that. So, do you want our opening responses in on friday, or a week from friday?

If the start date is to be Friday, you'd be free to make your statement anytime on or within a week after that day.

Remember that the FDD forum is fully moderated. Posts submitted there are invisible until I validate them. When I receive all three posts, I would then validate them at the same time, making all 3 posts appear simultaneously.

Anyways, if Ravi agrees to all of the parameters, then we can make it official. :)

[wiploc]

Nice. I think I can work with that.

Cool.




So, do you want our opening responses in on friday, or a week from friday?


What Nightshade said.

crc

[starling]

Hmm...perhaps I'd better clarify my understanding of the 3.

Atheist--Believes there is no God.

Theist--Believes there is a God.

Agnostic--Believes niether side has proven it one way or the other and that no one knows which is correct.

Alright, but what about those of us who don't believe in anything?

[Tsurmon]

What, you want us to make this Agnosticism Vs. Atheism Vs. Theism Vs. Lazy people?

Anyways, let's see...I think I can get my first entry up a week from Friday. Balancing this with my college homework, articles for TWO websites, and videogames shouldn't be too harrd...

[Common_Cents]

Sorry for the hold up. I definitely agree and am happy to get started. I feel your pain Tsurmon. I am a tad busy myself but no worries. Lets Rock! :D

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Okay then, on Friday we'll set up the formal debate thread in FDD. :)

This thread will now be closed.