You've missed the point haven't you. I haven't at one point said I myself believe in God. Even though I do. Not very strongly... but I do.

Nah, I have been known to miss ‘the point’ occasionally, but not so on this occasion. In fact, I have identified the fundamental premise of your debate (more on this later).Also, you do err in your inference that I implied you believe in God.

So you're telling me the world would be better off believing there was no God? EVER.

Non-sense, what I stated was intended to arouse the minds of those who read my post; it points at the self-evident facts of human nature. I was not attempting to govern or persuade the minds of others, but rather shine a light upon something all men can recognize. Why? All men and women more readily enjoy the benefits of their own critical thoughts than the benefit of some other’s line of reasoning.

Now back to the fundamental(not stated)premise of your debate.

Demagoguery is good for mankind.

I will not put all of the pieces together for you; I will present the facts of my argument without making an argument.

Demagogia (Gr)-control of the people.

Demagogue- a person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, religion, god, government,etc. in order to become a leader and achieve selfish ends.

Demagogos-leader of the people.

And finally, the word God is a mere tool of a demagogue.

My first reply was intended to implicate all would-be demagogues who would use the word ‘god’ to facilitate there own selfish ends of demagoguery.

Your debate is nothing more than the illustration of demagoguery without the use of the word demagoguery while at the same time a debate about whether or not a demagogue should use the word God .

BTW, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, for all men are ignorant of more than they are not ignorant of. (No intended hostility on my part if you have taken offence to something I’ve stated.)

Clearly, the author of this debate is ignorant of the meaning of the term God, or 'doG' spelled backwards. Why? There are many gods and each god is the God of its believers.

Hell, almost all believers and non-believers alike are unaware of the definition of god.

Now, in answer to this debate I submit the following: A belief never equates to greater goodness, in fact, a belief of good is always a consequence of a belief in one's importance.

Or, said this way, 'Because I believe such and such, more individuals receive the good of my belief.' Extremely irrational I would say!

Hello kinda,

I will reply to your post soon. I was unaware of your reply until now. I will share with you though that the definition you submitted will not denote the efforts of a man.

Yes, my definition of 'god' denotes man as well as a supreme cause.

You are showing promise!

We are now beginning to come full circle, back to the point of my first post. What is the definition of god? The answer to this question necessarily governs the conclusions of our answers to this debate.

Would you care to discuss a proper definition of 'god'?

I think I've presented enough of my view to negate the necessity of affirming my hatred of a demagogue.

But, if I haven't already, allow me to simply affirm this:

Demagoguery is intended to primarily benefit the demagogue, and as such he/she is the beneficiary of the greater good!

The facts/evidence precede this post.

Did you notice the incoherent rambling and abuse of grammar without one instance of misspelling?

Ah, what the hell, maybe CD ought to offer grammar-check as well as spell-check, all of which is semi-checked.

CD ought to develop a new kind of check: Think-check! Oops! Conflict of interest!!!!

I wish I had your degree of compassion. I may be too compassionate.

Stop speaking in tongues, for none whom I know can interpret your tongue. I recommend that you debate with people of your own tongue and forego debating people of a tongue that you clearly don't understand. For your sakes, and your sakes alone, have I counseled you to do such!