One question I don't see asked enough.

[robvalue]

I'm instantly suspicious of anything that makes claims but refuses to be scientifically tested.

[JesusHChrist]

I'm instantly suspicious of anything that makes claims but refuses to be scientifically tested.

I forget who said it, but it goes something like, "there is no need to invent new mousetraps to ensnare humankind. The old ones work quite well."

Our only hope to avoid the pitfalls of our nature is dispassionate examination of the evidence. Seems to work quite well.

[Homeless Nutter]

---

Lol yeah that would be cool they already started putting "God" cards into the game now. And a hilarious one called "deicide", which I misread as "decide" to begin with, that exiles a god. Haha!

But yeah. The nearest thing we have is god fighter by darkmatter2525, which you've probably all seen :p

---

[robvalue]

Lol wow that looks... Hum.... Let's say not as good as M:TG.

Or yu go oh. I got really into that at one point, but just the digital games, the one on the Xbox. I even wrote a guide about it I've written quite a few game guides, some of them are still up at Gamefaqs. You can guess my handle there :p I wrote a yu go oh guide specifically for people coming from playing M:TG since it's very confusing in transition.

[emilynghiem]

In my 14 of online debate I have learned lots of arguments for and against god claims and religion. But one thing I do not think is asked enough by skeptics is this.

Ok, you have billions of people making all sorts of competing claims as to the nature of reality. So to those reading this, what is the best way settle disputes in competing claims? (This is more for the theist to answer, atheists already know the answer).

Hi Brian37
The best way is to treat different religious and political beliefs
the same way you would treat any other competing set of facts, ideas or opinions.

You hold each group to be responsible for their own standards and own account for them, including costs and consequences.

You mediate if people have disputes, and decide what is a local issue to separate and manage respectively, and what is a shared issue that the diverse groups need to reach an agreement on.

If you can agree, then that should be the policy for those groups,
If you disagree, then keep them separate.

most people are projecting internal issues onto other people.
So when you multiply by collective groups, you get collective projection going on.

It's best to address people by groups, and/or break it down by individual to stop the group projection.

You can't solve problems unless you break them down into common principles and denominators.

If people can't solve conflicts, find a mediator who can intervene and facilitate a working solution they can live with. Too often this step is missed, people give up and just start bullying by coercion or exclusion to force their way onto others. If you resolve the root conflicts, this can be reduced to points you can address instead of letting them build up into collective religious wars or battles between political ideologies.

When whole groups go to war where only one side can win,
more often both sides lose and cause collateral damage to innocent bystanders who have to suffer the consequences. The solutions can often be found among the people with the greatest interest in resolving the conflicts with longterm sustainable approaches. So those people are usually at the bottom of the totem pole, fighting on the ground and struggling behind the scenes.

If you find the people willing to cross barriers to collaborate and make peace with the other groups, you'll likely find the solutions there, that the figurehead leaders miss because they are too busy fighting over the problems by attacking other groups, instead of working out solutions from the ground up that all people can live with regardless of affiliation.

[Brian37]

In my 14 of online debate I have learned lots of arguments for and against god claims and religion. But one thing I do not think is asked enough by skeptics is this.

Ok, you have billions of people making all sorts of competing claims as to the nature of reality. So to those reading this, what is the best way settle disputes in competing claims? (This is more for the theist to answer, atheists already know the answer).

Hi Brian37
The best way is to treat different religious and political beliefs
the same way you would treat any other competing set of facts, ideas or opinions.

You hold each group to be responsible for their own standards and own account for them, including costs and consequences.

You mediate if people have disputes, and decide what is a local issue to separate and manage respectively, and what is a shared issue that the diverse groups need to reach an agreement on.

If you can agree, then that should be the policy for those groups,
If you disagree, then keep them separate.

most people are projecting internal issues onto other people.
So when you multiply by collective groups, you get collective projection going on.

It's best to address people by groups, and/or break it down by individual to stop the group projection.

You can't solve problems unless you break them down into common principles and denominators.

If people can't solve conflicts, find a mediator who can intervene and facilitate a working solution they can live with. Too often this step is missed, people give up and just start bullying by coercion or exclusion to force their way onto others. If you resolve the root conflicts, this can be reduced to points you can address instead of letting them build up into collective religious wars or battles between political ideologies.

When whole groups go to war where only one side can win,
more often both sides lose and cause collateral damage to innocent bystanders who have to suffer the consequences. The solutions can often be found among the people with the greatest interest in resolving the conflicts with longterm sustainable approaches. So those people are usually at the bottom of the totem pole, fighting on the ground and struggling behind the scenes.

If you find the people willing to cross barriers to collaborate and make peace with the other groups, you'll likely find the solutions there, that the figurehead leaders miss because they are too busy fighting over the problems by attacking other groups, instead of working out solutions from the ground up that all people can live with regardless of affiliation.

Skip the salutations please. Not fond of that on the net. This isn't a "hey friend haven't seen you in years" e-mail. Just quote me and respond.

No I am not talking about morals or public law when talking about how to settle competing claims. Please do not think I am equating evidence as some sort of first amendment issue. Do not equate human rights, with credibility of a given claim. You have the right to claim you are Napoleon that doesn't make the claim itself credible by default.

There is a universal standard that settles competing claims and it is not religion. It is why you and I have computers. It is why we have doctors. The universal method to settle competing claims is a lab and scientific method.

You are talking about human rights which is not my issue. Evidence and credibility of the claim is my issue.