Why don’t we argue the relative merits of Star Trek

People do that already.

It’s important to settle these questions so that, when drafting legislation, voting for candidates or making legal decisions, we can reflect on what Kirk/Picard or Superman/Batman or Donald/Mickey would do.

Bad people do bad things. If a consensus of participants decide that monotheistic religions are (or aren’t) more prone to violence (than who/what?) then what does that mean? Should violent acts justified by sincerely held religious beliefs be viewed or treated differently than other acts of violence? Surely a more important question is: why should religious beliefs carry any weight at all?

It’s also ironic because I’m trying hard to make the distinction between debating theology and debating social policy but you aren’t listening.

Perhaps it’s beyond PizzaPops’ mental capacity.

And I agree that debating the premise has merit. I am a critic of Dawkins sometimes, but mostly because he loves using rhetoric and then dissembles when called on it. I think he is an excellent motivator for atheists. I always encourage people to read him, just critically. I think sometimes his promotion of science suffers because he is so successful at atheism. However, the stats I keep reading show that many atheists, especially in the US, are still in the closet. So I put a high value on his contribution, even if, my tactics are different.

On the issue of theology, it gives me a perverse joy to explain to theists, not only, why their theological position is self-contradictory, but also other more thorough and consistent alternative christian positions to take. There are better… christian philosophers, that most Christians do not even know exist. None will convince most atheists, but that is not the point.

You might say, I’m helping the enemy, and in a sense I am. But by giving them a more logical position I encourage logic.

I would not say that any theological position, ultimately, is sound or proof positive.(Thus I am an atheist) But all I want is for them to embrace as much logic as they can handle. Human beings are emotional, tribal and even a lot of atheists have trouble understanding complex philosophical issues. It is not because they are stupid. I am not a smart man, myself, average IQ(Heh). I have a fair amount of spare time however, so I have the opportunity to learn from wiser people. Understanding the world… is hard. Science is very counter-intuitive. Scientists who spend their lives steeped in it, sometimes forget how difficult it can be.

Understanding religion doesn’t gain me much in the way of metaphysical truth, only bits here and there, but it does help me understand people. And for me at least, people are the important thing. Truth is a good goal to have, but you can’t force truth on people, they have to find it themselves.

I oppose such a law whether it comes from an atheist or a Christian.

If a Roman Catholic tells me that she opposes abortion because that’s what her church says, how am I qualified to debate that?

That’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to tell Christians what they should believe once we’ve agreed to the premise that god exists. I prefer to debate the premise.

It requires me to accept the premise that God exists or that some holy book contains the truth. Why should I do that?

Accepting something, for the sake of argument, in order to show the logical contradictions implied by such a premise, is not the same as accepting that premise as Truth.

Accepting a premise for the sake of argument, or even experiment is very much a part of Rationalism and even science.

But no, there is no requirement to do so, if you don’t want to. I just disagree with you when you imply there is no value to do this. It both forces christians to think seriously and critically about dogma, and also shows that we atheists are not merely preaching our own dogma. This is an accusation that is much easier to make against those who refuse to even engage in rational discussion.

Personally, I am happy to take the time to examine these issues, not just for the diplomacy value, but because it keeps my own logic skills sharp.

Is the fact that you can’t tell the difference what you call “broad minded”? I call it stupid.