I actually stumbled into the debate by accident while perusing Slate. I picked up jimwhiting's question about the existence of evil and how this contraindicates the existence of the Judeo-Christian deity. Before I knew it, I had drilled the debate down from the existence of evil to the ability to "know" things and the materialistic worldview. I demonstrated the irrationality and self-refutation of the materialistic worldview in posts 1270-1274 - synthesizing arguments I had read by J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, C. S. Lewis and Augustine of Hippo.

This argument was consistently ignored by the materialists who chose, instead, to spend time attempting to deride my approach as "fraudulant", "out-dated", "anachronistic", etc. However, none were able to present an opposing basis for rationality that didn't contradict materialist doctrine - nor could they explain why materialism was internally coherent and does not refute itself.

Terms like "epistemology", "theology", "materialism", "empiricism", "logical positivism", "the verifiability criterion of meaning" and other technical terms were bandied about quite liberally. It is also notable that the exchanges often became acerbic and caustic with insults often flying back and forth. I attempted to point out error, dishonesty and unethical tactics as quickly and firmly as possible without being unnecessarily abrasive. In retrospect, I see where I sometimes crossed the line between reasoned discourse and indignant retort. However, on balance, it appears that the bulk of the angry insults and perjoratives were launched by my opponents.

While the debate has been separated into seven sections, there are no "hard edges" to the discussion. It rolled seamlessly from one issue - such as theodicy - to another - such as epistemology. This is due to several factors. First, no one in the discussion (including myself) was a professional or seasoned rhetoriticion or apologist. Second, there was no moderator to prevent diverging discussion. Third, the atheists became very skitterish when a theist had the nerve to demand of them the same rigorous proof and substantiation they persistently demand of theists. Thus, you will often see a question from me not being answered - but, instead, the atheist jumping to another topic or firing off insults to cover the fact that s/he could not answer the question reasonably.

The first section (Part 1) deals primarily with the issue of evil and the bearing this has on God's existence. The second section (Part 2) moves the discussion from the issue of evil to a more fundamental discussion of how we come to classify and know things. The third through fifth sections (Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) continue the discussion of knowledge and deal specifically with how a materialistic approach to reality rejects the possibility of rationality and reason and free will - which all of the proponents of materialism in The Fray believed in and called upon. The final sections (Part 6 and Part 7) conclude the discussion with the materialists basically withdrawing - refusing to admit defeat - but having to admit that they could not refute my arguments.

Early on in the debate, AlexKhan privately emailed me with some questions. Of all the atheists, he was by far the most reasonable and honest - readily admitting my argument was sound and that he believed in materialism by faith. But in my response to AlexKhan, I mentioned something that I believe bears repeating here. No person has ever been converted by argument. I doubt anyone has ever been converted by mere logic or reasoning. I believe people are converted by the power of God - and nothing less. My objective in this discussions and debates may be somewhat duplicitous. I am not seeking converts. Firstly, I simply enjoy arguing! But secondly, my only "spiritual" goal in such discourse is to remove false obstacles on the road to belief. Many honest, open seekers-of-truth have sincere, real concerns about belief in God that are phantasms - constructed usually by atheists in attempts to bolster their religious convictions. When the discussion can be enjoined objectively and reasonably, most all of these concerns are revealed as what they are - the misunderstandings of zealots and fanatics. This done, many seekers-of-truth can more boldly approach belief; perhaps allowing the Spirit a fresh opportunity to work in their hearts.

I never expected mnjperry or slaterdr9 to relinquish their dogmatic beliefs regardless of the strength of my arguments. They are religious to a fault. What I did manage to do quite effectively, though, was to demonstrate that they are religious in their beliefs. That they are what they often deride Christians for being. Their hypocrisy and intellectual evasion became obvious. Their frequent attempts to characterize Christians as proseletyzing zealots who have no interest in honestly debating or seeking the truth were turned upon them - with much damage to their position. I believe this to be an adequate accomplishment.