Excellent critique of the critique Vodsel, .

So I like what ntwhtyouknw wrote and it got me thinking about some more good ground rules so to speak.

Science vs. science- Firstly where I see so many debates just go flat and become un interesting is when special interest science keeps being used as an argument. Again not to pick on any one group but something like a creationist scientist's papers mean absolutely squat so bringing up endless links or research from Christian science web sites and books really shouldn't be allowed. Nor should new age fringe science either. People like Nassiem Harremiem. Yea he is a smart guy but not one paper peer reviewed and accepted by the science community but exalted by the new age movement. BTW the guy doesn't even hold a phd in the very science he claims to have figured out but does have some very interesting ideas I will say. However no peer review...no entry! 

If both sides cant agree that science used as defense or argument must be published, peer reviewed and void of special interests and ludicrous claims of being oppressed by the Gvt. for knowing the truth then it needs to just be left out. True science has no opinion and its methods are not perfect but the best we have and has got us this far. So if you are willing to use medicine and doctors when your child is dying or sick you best be willing to accept other sciences from the community or your a big ole hypocrite.

Philosophy vs philosophy- Kind of self explanatory and where the meat in the sandwich is for debating these topics. Its a tough one in debates but a needed one because its not even a soft science. Its understanding the world not by observation but by contemplation and thought. All I could really say about this is if you cant keep reason and basic logic in your arguments then leave the table. Examples like; "The majority of the worlds population are non believers in Christianity. This is just what Satan intended therefore God exists". Thats actually an accepted by Christian groups philosophical argument!!!!:surprised  This is what Im referring to. Again, not picking on Christianity here I used Islam earlier so I'm spreading the love so to speak.

Backing up your adjectives- Here is the one that I couldn't get someone to see in the other thread. That I wasn't using slander or empty attacks nor was I attacking individual people. If said Deity is being discussed and said Deity condones say the murdering of every 3rd infant born, then calling this Deity adjectives like disgusting, twisted, and murderous is more than justified and if the opposing side takes offense to that personally then they need to bow out because nobody attacked them. NO challenges on accepted beliefs or ideology's should ever be off the table just because somebody might get there feelings hurt! Nobody here made this stuff up if its coming from a holy text. Nut up! (obviously I'm speaking from a sided view point just to make it easier to make my points, but Im trying to call out my side as well)

That being said back up your shots people on both sides. If your going to claim Muslims as a whole are killing machines you best explain with some facts. Furthermore if your saying atheists are immoral people don't just use the go to of Mao or Stalin as an example. Explain how all or most atheist are immoral with facts not just some infamous leader from history.

Define what is being debated and stay on track!!!!- This one is the biggest merry go round cluster F'k we all have seen. The topic for discussion must be defined but just as important the definitions. Are we discussing the probability of the existence of a God or the Probability of the Abrahamic God. HUGE freaking difference and takes the discussion in totally different directions.

Within Theism, theology, atheism ext there are more topics that could be debated in a single conversation and individually have been debated for hours. Don't start bringing up evolution is a crock or Noahs flood is B.S. when the discussion is about the reasons for separation of church and state!

Threads here about theology rarely begin with a clear topic so if you want to jump in first things first.

A-what are we discussing

B-What are the agreed upon definitions needed to have this conversation.

C- Have a ball, :lol:

This is especially important with labels. For one there isn't just one type of Christian. There are many and there are also many types of agnostics and atheist's. So Christians and other faiths help me out here. I know there are those that interpret the Bible and take every single word as divine literal truth and the other end of the spectrum those that feel its a series of stories to get you to think or make points but no...nobody was swallowed by a freaking whale and popped out days later all fresh and jubilant!:surprised 

I know for my side there are 5 different versions of atheism and I will list those and define when needed. Just making a point. There is no one size fits all in these discussions so know who you are, and who is across the table to avoid getting side tracked on details.

Have a thick skin and a cool head- Man that goes a long way and is so often over looked. 

Anyway these were just some things that popped in my head that feel pertanant from past discussions here and in life. I truly enjoy debating these topics as do others. I understand more Agnostics and Atheists are quicker to engage but a word to the believers of other faiths...there are some damn fine Theist debaters out there and I've seen some give it as good as they get. watch youtube you would be surprised.

The best ones I watch are those that don't get too out there, they don't often go to creationism cuz, im sorry guy''s, its so clearly and easily blown out the water, Hell even the Vatican accepts evolution and geological aged earth. So watch how the big 3 do it, it can be done and done well. Ill even concede that one debate I feel the theist took it hands down and Im an ATHEIST!!!!

Good thread and IMO about time!