Role reversals

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:07 am

Just for a little fun lets have the Deists argue for Atheism and the Atheists argue for Deism. The agnostics can pick and choose what side they want to be on

.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:08 pm

That sounds like a lot of fun. Group therapy often involves role reversals, and part of forensics exercises involve arguing for something you don't believe in. Do you have a structure for this in mind?

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:52 pm

st88 wrote:Do you have a structure for this in mind?

Not particularly, if you have any suggestions feel free to go with them.

Todd · Post by **Todd** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:03 am

This'll be interesting.
I don't know if many people know this but I used to be an atheist, so I guess I'll be acting how I thought about 4 months ago.

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:51 am

So, I would have to leave my mind and intelligence at the door, pick up my crayons, and try to get other people to do the same in order for them to assume a 'belief' like 'mine' (I guess if someone else believes it that makes it somehow more valid?)?? And the point is? Ok, oh, yeah, uhh, "Jeeezus loves you"... Howz that? *__-

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:06 am

So, I would have to leave my mind and intelligence at the door, pick up my crayons, and try to get other people to do the same in order for them to assume a 'belief' like 'mine' (I guess if someone else believes it that makes it somehow more valid?)?? And the point is? Ok, oh, yeah, uhh, "Jeeezus loves you"... Howz that? *__-

If you would like to simplify your arguement to that then that is fine. Although, I think you are giving the other side less credit than they deserve.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:17 am

Nameless wrote:So, I would have to leave my mind and intelligence at the door, pick up my crayons, and try to get other people to do the same in order for them to assume a 'belief' like 'mine' (I guess if someone else believes it that makes it somehow more valid?)?? And the point is? Ok, oh, yeah, uhh, "Jeeezus loves you"... Howz that? *__-

This statement is a violation of the following rule
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
Honestly Nameless, you have been around quite long enough to be well aware of the forum RULES though you may want to refresh yourself.

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:00 am

I forgot, such delicate souls. Please forgive the sarcasm. 8(
Was anyone else offended? I forgot that sarcasm is not allowed.
Perhaps a day in the stocks?
Shucks! Darn! I seem to be possessed of a 'sarcastic' spirit tonight!
Perhaps an exorcism?
(Hope I didn't offend any 'evil spirits' out there!)
Please pray for me!!
Must make 'sarcastic' spirit-leave-fat-body!!
Nomine Patrii, et Filii, Et Domine Abomini.......
AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:17 am

Piper Plexed wrote:7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

So, a post that might incite a 'passionate' response would be considered 'inflamatory?

I'm sorry, y'all are just too delicate for me. Don't bother trying to put me in your 'stocks' (christians!), they'd never hold me!
I'm going back to playing with the grown-ups.

The Bird with Iron Feathers...
has LEFT the building

Bye, bye birdies....

*__-

Post by **otseng** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:55 am

Nameless wrote:
So, a post that might incite a 'passionate' response would be considered 'inflamatory?

A passionate response is not bad. But to insinuate that Christians would have to "leave my mind and intelligence at the door" is not considered respectful, esp on this forum where reasoning is valued.

Additionally, your responses is not respectful of what TQWcS has proposed. He has made a proposal for an intelligent debate with the roles reversed. And the purpose of it is not to make light of any particular side. Actually, I have been impressed with the discussion that has taken place between TQWcS and ST88 on Role reversal: creation in the classroom. They have demonstrated that they know the case presented by the other side and have been very civil in their discussions. I have even picked up a thing or two from following it.

A comment on humor. Humor is an important part in keeping the atmosphere civil around here. Debating can get quite tense, esp with all the volatile topics that we have here. But, humor should not be used at the expense of others. Putting anybody down is not a good use of humor. Ridiculing any group is also not acceptable.

Finally, when a moderator makes a moderating decision, it is against the rules to argue back publicly. However, you are allowed to argue back all you want via PM.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Role reversals

Role reversals

uh huh

Re: uh huh

Re: uh huh

Re: uh huh