A Formal Debate Announcement

joma_s

The existence of God is seldom questioned in Asia, and yet, the best Filipino Evangelical Apologist of the Equipping Christian will square it off with the most outspoken Atheist from Singapore, who is the founder of Atheist Haven.

On December 1, 2005, D’Sweeper (theist) and The Beast (atheist) will cross swords on probably the most important question human being can be confronted with: Does God Exist?

We, therefore invite you to witness this landmark Debate to be posted on the following Forum.

For Theist Posting : Equipping Christians Forum ("eC Forum")

For Atheist Posting : Pinoy Atheist Forum ("PA Forum")

The debate will end on Dec 23, 2005 afterwhich, the moderator will collect the score sheets from the six(6) Judges to declare the winner.

Milliardo

Seems like another useless God/No God debate. Both sides can't prove their cases, since God is a matter of belief or faith. However, I would say the atheist actually loses on this one, since in the first place why would he be debating about it? It's like he is almost agreeing that God exists, since for one to debate about an issue, there must first be an agreement that such a condition exists, so the atheist is actually agreeing, in principle, that God exists--then he goes on to try and prove He does not exist. Ridiculous!

Ischaramoochie

not necessarily. the debate starts from the assumption of the possibility of a god's existence by both parties. it is thus the task of the theist to prove that this possibility is actually the case by defining god and forwarding positive arguments for his position, while the atheist would need to refute the arguments of the theist and prove that the theistic concept of god is either self-contradictory or based on something entirely outside reason or logic. in any case, the result of such a debate will neither conclusively prove that god exists or that either argument is true, but will showcase the argumentation skills of both participants, as well as invoke the critical attitude of the readers to either proposition.

mac_bolan00

Milliardo wrote:

Seems like another useless God/No God debate. Both sides can't prove their cases, since God is a matter of belief or faith. However, I would say the atheist actually loses on this one, since in the first place why would he be debating about it? It's like he is almost agreeing that God exists, since for one to debate about an issue, there must first be an agreement that such a condition exists, so the atheist is actually agreeing, in principle, that God exists--then he goes on to try and prove He does not exist. Ridiculous!

what an idiot. does hogwarts exist?

Milliardo

Ischaramoochie wrote:

not necessarily. the debate starts from the assumption of the possibility of a god's existence by both parties.

If one starts with the assumption of the possibility that God does exist, then wouldn't it mean the atheist has already catipulated right from the very start?

but will showcase the argumentation skills of both participants

I think then, in the end, that's all there is to it.

Milliardo

mac_bolan00 wrote:

what an idiot. does hogwarts exist?

Can't accept reality now, can you? So you resort to this, since you realize that by going into a debate, you accept the possibility of the existence of God, or else you wouldn't really be debating now...

Milliardo

mac_bolan00 wrote:

what an idiot. does hogwarts exist?

BTW, I forgot to mention: does anyone debate whether Hogwarts exist or not? None that I know of, because everyone knows it's just fiction. So if atheists supposedly believe God to be nothing more than fiction, why do they still engage in debating about it?

ach_soo

I'll believe in Hogwarts sooner than Jesus the Idiot and his doG.

joma_s

hey guys,
thanks for your interest in this subject. i promise to give the necessary link as the debates progresses.

thanks again...

joma

gekokujo

good call on making this formal, too often I've seen otherwise promising debates ruined because of one or both parties wandering into non-sequiturs or ad hominems. be interesting to see how discipline is maintained.

st.anger

is that the same The Beast who's posting on PEX?

joma_s

gekokujo wrote:

good call on making this formal, too often I've seen otherwise promising debates ruined because of one or both parties wandering into non-sequiturs or ad hominems. be interesting to see how discipline is maintained.

Gekokujo,
It took us a long while for the Debaters to come to term. Finally, judges were selected and criteria were laid. Most of the judges are familiar with logical argumentations and fallacies. Of course, we hope that this will come out as intellectual exercise, besides debating manners that will count heavy.

joma

joma_s

st.anger wrote:

is that the same The Beast who's posting on PEX?

I am not sure, st. anger.

Roy (The Beast) posts messages in Pinoy Atheist Forum and egrup, as well as his blogs.

joma

st.anger

^ i hope it isn't the same guy.

joma_s

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Welcome Address by the Moderator to D'Sweeper vs The Beast Debate is now posted.

You may read in The Christian Site or The Atheist Site


joma

Jaywalker

how were the debaters selected?

Mordecai is one of the judges! I think we know who he'll be voting for ...at least the mooch is on our side

my_identity

What do you exactly mean by being a post-theist, mooch? (Or perhaps anyone could bring me some enlightenment.)

st.anger

in the immortal words of Michael Buffer:

LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUMBLEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Olorin

What was agreed upon during the pre-debate conference if there was one?

Olorin

Milliardo wrote:

Can't accept reality now, can you? So you resort to this, since you realize that by going into a debate, you accept the possibility of the existence of God, or else you wouldn't really be debating now...

Admit it. You don't understand mac_bolan00's post.

Ischaramoochie

my_identity wrote:

What do you exactly mean by being a post-theist, mooch? (Or perhaps anyone could bring me some enlightenment.)

according to Mordecai, it would be another term for "atheist-in-denial."

i'd rather define it as someone who is more interested on how the answer to the the god question is obtained, rather than the answer itself.