When I read the title of the article I was intrigued. I agree such conversations can be frustrating. And the article manages to touch on why they can be frustrating pretty well. However I think the article strayed from its pure intention, defining what the problem in the debates is and suggesting solutions, into just making another argument. I think the piece would have been better served if it would have stayed away from actually declaring a preference of whether or not there is a supreme being and simply stuck to the topic of establishing useful groundrules. Just my subjective opinion of course, and of course the secular web is filled with some fine writing and reasoning, so kudos in general.

-DM-

[Thank you for your "kudos in general" and for your feedback to <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=50" target="_blank">Why Atheism Versus Theism Debates Are So Frustrating</a> bu -randau. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. --Don--]

-DM-

-randau responds:

---------

The thesis was that the problem existed because of the lack of a mutual premise upon which to base a rational debate that could lead to a logical conclusion. So, I felt obligated to point out the two conflicting premises that I felt were unconsciously underlying the debates. Having done that, I then explored the consequences of using either as a mutual premise with the result that one would render the debate moot and the other would not. However, the later resulted in a conclusion that would logically permit both Atheistic and Theistic hypotheses without either violating the mutual premise. Thus still rendering the debate futile with respect to a logical conclusion proving or disproving either hypotheses. A conclusion I didn't anticipate when starting out.

Since the conclusion still renders the debate futile with respect to logically proving or disproving either hypotheses, I'm not sure what new argument was created.


I made a definite attempt NOT to declare whether or not there actually is a supreme being. Rather, I tried to make arguments on both sides. Where did I make such a declaration?

However, I do admit that my bias has probably shown through, but I
don't apologize for that.


-randau

-DM-

[Moved here from Feedback to facilitate further discussion. --Don--]