I know I said that I would only respond to anti_thesis, but I guess this needs to be addressed as well. I actually came to this discussion board simply because I was seeking to prevent a bombardment of comments/questions from a whole host of other commentators. Not that the comments aren't worth while for the most part because they are, but because the majority warrant an adequate response that would require more time than I could put in.
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
Finally, still being new to this type of thread I was trying to figure out how to decide whom to talk to. Anti_thesis was the first to respond so I intend the discussion to be with him. If he doesn't want to he can choose anyone else on here to talk in his place. The question I have is how long do we wait if he's absent for an extended amount of time before I choose the next person to talk one on one with? Is there a local rule on this?
I only now realized this already is in the 'one-on-one' discussion. Well, technically I suppose you would check if anybody wanted to do a one-on-one discussion in the peanutgallery or just reach an agreement in another thread. It seems a tad weird to start a one-on-one if you're only one. Basically, you could have started a more informal thread to find someone who agrees to a one-on-one.In that informal thread you can decide on all the rules and subjects the two of you can agree to. But I'm not sure it you HAVE to do it like that. Don't know if there's an official rule that says how a one-on-one needs to come about. This way, however, seems a tad confusing as I didn't notice it was the formal debate already. (I can't speak for others, of course.)
Also, if you find someone to debate you one-on-one on that subject, then good for the both of you. I think, however, that a lot of people here don't have misconceptions as a great deal of our ranks used to be christians. I used to be a catholic, for example. Most of us feel like Christianity isn't this obscure little religion that we don't know much about. Most of us see it daily and grew up in a cultural environment drenched in it. We are not atheïsts because we misconceive Christianity, but exactly because we conceive it for what it is.
For these reasons, I personally do not have any interest in discussing your religion with you. Not if you do not wish to make any specific and defendable claim. (And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying I don't think our discussion would be of interest to either of us.)
Good luck in finding a debatepartner though.