"People, We answer how we answer. Is that not good enough? Some people respond by writing back, and others might respond by placing links or giving references to periodicals, articles, and other religious/scientific books....I see quite a bit of responses very short, only revealing books, links, etc....That is not bad, not at all. The people who do this, obviously feel/think that this is the best answer to give according to them, and I imagine the resources given, instead of a wriiten response, are put there to better explain a point, or how that person wishes to convey a response. The answers might be more complete."

That may be true as long as said person IS in fact, giving his posts his all. I get the distinct impression that a good 80% of Jisbond's replies are him just throwing up smokescreens to hide behind. Replying to a minor point in a post while ignoring all the valid main points is such a strategy, and it is not conducive to a healthy debate. Live and let live is a decent philosophy, and I try to live by it, but I reserve my right to get angry when people refuse to argue rationally in a forum BUILT for arguments and debates.

Let's start a debate from square one: Robert, why do you believe what you do?

• For many reasons, - rggarfinkle - August 29, 2001 - 01:31 UTC
  • Irrational faith has a foundation of sand and dust - stormcrow - August 29, 2001 - 02:36 UTC
    • Nonsense - harvey1 - August 29, 2001 - 22:37 UTC
      • Yeah, but CREATIVE nonsense. :) - stormcrow - August 29, 2001 - 22:49 UTC
        • I agree - harvey1 - August 30, 2001 - 03:36 UTC