What city?

It's an interesting idea, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness.  First, I think it's going to be difficult for you to get a group of theists and atheists who really aren't going to get mad at each other.  The thing is, this debate isn't about finding middle ground.  Either atheists are right or theists are right.  Dichotomies like that tend to produce rather bitter disputes, particularly when each side is pushing for real life changes in politics, economics, science, and law, and each side's changes are abhorrent to the other side.

Second, I think you're going to find that the atheists who are best at refuting theism are somewhat reticent to reduce it to a bar room chat.

I'm much more comfortable in an online context, to be honest.  For one thing, I've received too many threats of violence or death from theists to trust any of them enough to spend a lot of time making myself personally available for such endeavors.  A couple of years back, I was working on planning a very public atheist event in my town, and later realized that the security cost and risks were too high and ditched the idea. 

As far as what language we can speak together, that's also difficult because the very heart of the difference between theists and atheists is that we live in different universes.  Belief in a deity requires a fundamental opposition to rational materialism.  Without overstating things, it's safe to say that atheists and theists speak a different language.  The most basic concepts don't mean the same things to you as they do to us.  Knowledge, evidence, proof, validity, faith, logic -- all of these words mean different things to us than they do to you.

For my part, I have to tell you that I view the dialog between theists and atheists as a war of ideas, with all the implications of war.  That's not to say I can't hang out with theists, or that I think they're horrible people.  I don't.  I believe (based on science!) that most people are basically good most of the time.  I respect the fact that most theists simply have no idea how dangerous their beliefs are.  I don't fault them for this.  In fact, I pity theists -- especially American theists.  It's not their fault they were born into the most religious country in the civilized world and indoctrinated by parents who didn't know any better.

As I said, my interest is not in finding common language or making ideological peace.  I want your belief eradicated from the face of the planet.  I desperately want it to remain a war of ideas, as I abhor physical violence.  I need to say that because I have received numerous angry letters accusing me of wanting to kill theists or outlaw religion.  I have no such goals.  I want to promote science and reason so effectively that society transforms, and it becomes patently silly to believe in gods and spirits and demons.

As I've said in many other threads, I believe that it takes different approaches to solve a problem as big as theism.  I suppose there are atheists who would be interested in such an endeavor, and maybe through their efforts, a few theists would be exposed to enough reason to give up their irrational beliefs.  I certainly don't want to dissuade you from giving it a try.  I know you believe that such a setting could possibly have the opposite effect, winning a few converts to theism.  You might be right.  I also get that you believe this kind of dialog might lead to some kind of peace between atheism and theism.  As I hope I've made clear, I will be standing in opposition to any such peace.  The two ideas are irreconcilable.

I'm not writing this to try to tell you it's a stupid idea, or to generally harass you.  I'm giving you my honest viewpoint in the hope that understanding my beliefs (and more notably, my fears) will give you a perspective that will help you answer your questions.

If you'd like to know more about my belief in the fundamental difference between theism and atheism, and why it's a war of ideas, read this essay:

Religious Moderation

 Hey again,

So in terms of city I'm talking New York City.

In terms of structure, I suppose my initial ideas were to either host sort of a one-on-one style conversation (not debate) where a representative of Atheism and a representative of Theism could get up and interview one another with a moderator who's job was not to ask questions, but just keep the conversation moving if necessary, and then field questions at the end. After which Theists and Atheists would be welcome to stay, hang out, and open it up for discussion.

Or just have an open room, tables, benches, free food, etc. And then pick a topic, could be anything, and people could come, bring their friends and hang out and talk to people one on one or in smaller groups, you know? More of a street-level interaction.

I'm sorry you've received death threats from theists, Hambydammit - holy crap! Well it's okay if you'd rather talk via the internet, seriously, it's not worth risking your life.

I would, however, open the invitation up for more suggestions on this because I think it's something that people would be interested in taking part in.

 - Skeptnick

No pants... what? thats just me?

Anonimity of the internet... is a wonderful thing, and its probably best to leave your idea there Skeptnick, the insurance for a bar full of 2 opposing factions, is a killer

But I understand that the history of alcohol and debates is very colourful, lots of red, black, blue and purple. I really never seen a "group" in a bar/pub debate anything A) Coherent, B) in a non violent way. Now one on one sure, 2 vs 2 ok....anything beyond that your asking for trouble. Never mix debates and alcohol....just like alcohol and ex's never a good thing to do.

As for a debate topic, well everyone would have to agree to a specific topic, say the historical facts of the bible, or the moral stance of the church/religion and try not to deviate from it, as well get someone neutral to make sure everyone one stays on topic.

 I have no problem with people who wish to stay home and debate via internet. I have no problem with those who just don't want to meet theists and talk. Let's approach the question more like this:

Say your an atheist who is set on not conversing about religion, skepticism, belief, disbelief, etc., in a public fashion outside of the internet - but you have an atheist friend who is! What advice would you give someone like myself if I wished to host an event that your friend could come to to talk about the issues, and not feel cornered or attacked, but free to address their doubts in a relaxed fashion?

Sure, not all atheists are up for debate, nor is every theist, there are people on both sides who'd rather stay home than come out and talk publicly, and there's no problem with that. My question was simply addressed to and about those atheists who would be.

So again, even if you yourself are not interested in coming out, would you mind at least offering some advice to me on how to better host the atheists who would? Any advice would be great since this is something that is probably going to happen, good idea or no.

- Skeptniick

A topic on which athiests and Christians are garaunteed to agree, but for interestingly differing reasons, is on the divine claims of every figure outside of Christian umbrella. I have been on the recieving end of a lot of preaching. I would be much less interested in a topic I percieved as preaching, such as the reliability of the bible, or whether the holy spirit gives us moral sense. I would be much more likely to attend a meeting where there is commonality between both parties.  It is less threatening and confrontational to say we believe the same thing, but arrived there different ways, and explain those ways. Another topic for potential agreement would be seperation of church and state, but that is only true if your group agrees that it is important.

For nearly any other controversial topic, you will find the controversy exists within the athiest group. Abortion, gun control, etc, it's impossible to contrast the Christian stance to the athiest stance because there is no coherant athiest stance. As such, we come back to the mostly coherant Christian viewpoint verses a lack of representation (I am assuming here, that you won't give every athiest the same oppritunity to present thier individual viewpoint, as from a group perspective it is unfair), which takes us back to feeling preached to. Those are my .02$. You are welcome to take it for what it is worth.