Absolutely.

And all debates about reality should be only for non-theists. (What's another word for non-theist...hmmm)

Most of the debates tend to be about evolution or the existence of god. And most of those debates are created and dominated by non believers and all have almost the same outcome. That is freaking pointless. What is anyone gaining from that?

There's even less point of a debate where everyone is agreeing.

But the consistancy with which the non-believers emerge victorious in the religion debates should have a point.

It should tell people on the other side that they need to either re-evaluate the basis of their beliefs, or come up with a better defense than,

the Bible says,

it makes me feel good,

I just know because I know,

All of which are not only poor arguements, but incredibly easy and entertaining to debunk in endlessly creative ways.

I'll make a deal J, point me to the next religion arguement, and I'll play the devil's (or god's I guess) advocate, and see if there may be better arguements than the 3 stated above.

Absolutely NOT! As a religious person do you not wish to debate what you believe in? If all we ever did was allow people who are in agreement with one another to debate a subject this would no longer be a debate site.

Even if you succeeded in making the religious debate section only for religious people all you'd be arguing about is whose religious beliefs are best. A debate is meant put a subject out there and defend your knowledge of that subject against another's beliefs.

No that is ridiculous how can we judge ourselves without an outside view? A view that is opposite ours is needed to give us a true negative outlook. What kind of debate is ' does God exist? ' if the only people ' allowed ' in that debate are people that believe that God exists ?

I think not, everybody has an opinion. Also, how is the side score of yes six if nobody tagged it yes?

To cordon off parts of the site for "religious people" or "scientists" would defeat the purpose of the site. The whole point of debate is to discuss the merits of various points of view with the purpose of demonstrating that one's point of view is superior.

And yet debating religion with an atheist, especially one who has concluded through logic that a divine being does not in fact exist, is fundamentally absurd. The "faithful" accept the existence of God without reservation and without proof, thus they have faith. Because of this one cannot possibly prove that God exists and therefore cannot construct a logical or rational argument to that effect. This does not mean that one's belief is necessarily wrong (though the possibility must be acknowledged), merely that it is not a result of any logical conclusion and cannot be proven. Meaning that debating religion with an atheist is, pointless. The believer cannot create an argument that is convincing because he (or she) cannot provide proof; likewise the atheist cannot construct an argument that will be accepted because the believer has already made a conclusion that is completely illogical.

Which is why I've sworn off religious debates. It's a waste of everyone's time.

No. Atheists are destined to enlighten the religious and the religious are destined to have their faith tested. Keep the faith!

Only if the science section can be for scientists only.

I am agnostic, but have argued on behalf of god before. I can argue both points to prove to myself I understand the situation. Its a good thing.