RGFSMCL-015

Question	Questioner	Answer	Potential Token Winner?	Reason if "No"
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes
What evidence would convince you that God exists?	A Born Again Christian	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes
Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	A Pantheist	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.Yes	Yes
Do you believe god exists in any form and why?	A non-religious theist	If I was forced to answer only with a yes or no, I'd say "no" and the reason why is that I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. A longer answer is that I consider the existence of a god or gods to be extremely unlikely because I've yet to see any evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, so I live my life on the assumption that there are no gods. However, I also believe that anything is possible in an infinite reality, so the existence of a god or gods is not impossible. There's an even longer answer which requires exploring what the word "god" actually means. Without a definition it's impossible to answer the question, so when I say the existence of a god is unlikely, I'm making unconscious assumptions about what a god is, which might be totally different to the concept of god that is in your mind when you ask the question	Yes
Who has more credibility, God or Piers Morgan?	A man in tights	Piers Morgan has zero credibility, without doubt, therefore God must have more credibility than Piers Morgan by definition	Yes
What evidence would convince you that God exists?	A Born Again Christian	There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)	Yes
Which religion do you think has the best headgear and/or facial hair? do you feel this is a requirement for a credible religion?	A Pantheist	For me, Sikhism wins the headgear/facial hair combo every time. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E8BEE0000005DC-20_634x948.jpg I think either headgear OR distinctive facial hair is a requirement for a credible religion, but not necessarily both.Yes	Yes
Really, Jim--is this the best you can offer to the challenge to express and defend your perspective in all your posits?	An Apologist	Yes	No	Off topic
We're all aware of your admitted background in advertising--and as we all know from advertising, it is a one sided presentation of propaganda which neither expects nor acknowledges other expressed opinions on the matter	An Apologist	I don't have a "background in advertising" (admitted or otherwise). Two years ago I stated that "I spent many years in the marketing and advertising business." but that's not my background. You then formed an opinion about what my role might have been - a very negative opinion for some reason. Even though I explained to you at the time that my background is not in advertising, you continue to repeat your ad hominem opinions.  You shouldn't tar everyone who works or has worked in the advertising industry with the same brush, Many years ago you stated that you had a minor role in the movie industry, during a discussion on immorality, and you explained that your minor role had nevertheless given you an "insider" view.  It would never occur to me to jump to a conclusion that the immorality you may have witnessed somehow reflects badly on you.   Having said all that, it is true that during my exposure to the advertising world, the parallels and similarities with mainstream religion were striking. Finally I should point out that your assumption about how advertising works is not strictly accurate. There is propaganda but successful advertising relies on a deep understanding of the target audience, and advertising companies spend fortunes on researching and understanding people's opinions. Public opinion can demolish an advertising campaign, especially with the advent of social media.	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Again, you redirect responsibility for honest presentation of one's perspective onto others and pretend that this stunt of yours--where you remain in the driver's seat--reflects an honest exchange of views.	An Apologist	My impression was that you considered me to be in the "driving seat" when I was asking questions. Now you say I'm in the "driving seat" because I'm answering questions. Perhaps a better analogy would be that you are now in the driving seat, but you can't get the engine started	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Here's my challenge--previously expressed: present and be willing to defend your views on whatever matter that you would expect others to do so! Thanks for understanding what a real give-and-take discussion (hopefully for the enlightenment of all parties) is all about!	An Apologist	As far as I can tell, I have presented and have been willing to defend my views on whatever matter that I would expect others to do so. This is your opportunity to refer to a view that you consider I have been unwilling to defend. In fact I've given you many such opportunities, but you are always unable to find a single example. In the absence of evidence your allegation remains unfounded. I do sometimes wonder if the constant appearance of this allegation is a way for you to avoid responding on topic when you've lost the argument.	No	Not a question. Off topic.
Have you no shame? Identify my "quoting the Gospels to demonstrate the Gospels are true." Date please?	An Evangelical Christian	I possess a full range of emotions, including shame.  The quote was "JimC... continually confirms for me the wisdom of the Bible. --"The Gospel is foolishness to those who will not believe." and the date was 12 Dec 2013 at 5:53PM (UK time)	No	Not a question
Would you have us confuse the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?	An Apologist	No I wouldn't. They are obviously different. Eyewitness testimony is an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated. People who claim the gospels are eye witness accounts are confusing eyewitness testimony with hearsay	Yes