Discussing – Harmonia Philosophica

*Debating was always a hot topic… [Source: Wikimedia Commons]*

Tired of having heated discussions on God and religion with angry people?

Tired of having impolite or rude reactions to your logical arguments?

The art of debating is simple: Just be polite and respect one another!

And yet, to-day it is harder and harder to find someone who can actually do that!

And that is a pity because too many interesting discussions are lost due to the simple inability of people to just sit and listen to each other. In modern era everyone is so keen on persuading others for their own opinion that the hardly find time to listen to the opposite opinions. But fool yourself not: No matter how right you think you are, the existence of an opposite opinion is a treasure that you should cherish!

To tackle this modern problem a new debate safe-space is introduced: COOD!

A private invitation-only group where polite discussion is the only rule!

> Join group at COOD: Civilized One-on-One Debates on God, Science, Religion & Metaphysics <

A place where people debate only on a one-on-one basis and not in the usual ‘everyone attacking everyone’ manner which resembles lynching more than it resembles actual discussion.

And that is not the only good thing about COOD!

The debates are structured in a way that allows for pure and civilized exchange of ideas, allowing everyone the time to read and understand the opinion of the other side! Debating happens with one person posting after the other in sequential order – posting avalanches of ‘arguments’ to burry your ‘opponent’ with arguments is simply not allowed. Strick administrative oversight ensures that each person says something and then waits for the answer of the other side before posting again!

Last but not least: The debates at COOD end after twenty (20) posts from each side and posted. No more than 20 posts are allowed per person! Keep it short and sweet! In that way everyone will pay more attention to the arguments they post rather than getting into a vindictive mode of constant posting until the other party does not have the time or the nerve to keep up. Civilized discussions happen with structure and at some point they have a civilized end.

Everyone reading can then assess the discussion at their own pace.

Any topic can be of course be the subject of another debate as many times as people wish, as long as the above rules are met (Read the Rules in the page for more details).

Too COOD to be true?

Perhaps it is time to believe in miracles…

Every time I talk with an atheist about religion I receive a lot of anger. Anger which is based on the “evils done by religion” throughout the centuries.

But I am not an archbishop.

I am not the Patriarch.

And even if I was, should I be held responsible for mistakes performed by people who claimed to be “Christians” centuries ago? In the same way science is not in any way responsible for atrocities performed in its name (e.g. eugenics), Christianity cannot be held responsible for atrocities performed in its name by people who obviously did not follow the Christian values of love, forgiveness and repentance.

We love attaching labels. (you are a “Christian”)

We love categorizing. (you are a “Christian”, thus the same as people who called themselves “christians” and killed people in the past, as if Christ taught murder)

We love deducing conclusions. (you are a Christian so you like killing like some people who called themselves “christians” and killed people in the past, as if Christ taught murder)

Methods which are nice for creating science.

But which are terrible for human communication.

Let’s all see the other for the man he really is. Let’s not judge people as if they represent crusaders, atheist eugenics researchers, the Pope or Hitler. Let’s just talk to each other as if we talk to… each other!

I am a Christian.

I am not a “Christian”.

Category: Discussing

COOD: Civilized One-on-One Debates on God, Science, Religion & Metaphysics

I am a Christian. Not a “Christian”.