Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[leroy]

I'll take option 2 for $300, Leroy.

Then do it-

 

[JoshuaTree]

You never have to prove a negative. Just as you doesn't have to prove that unicorns doesn't exist either. You have also looked at the lack of evidence for such being and concluded that they don't exist.

So it sounds like you more interested in the "words" he used rather than what he is saying. But even if he deliberately reached the conclusion that God(s) doesn't exists based on looking at the evidence. He still doesn't have to prove a negative.

If he claim that there is "no God" then you would be fair in asking for evidence for why he make such claim.

Yeah, I was trying to draw out of him if his claim was that there is no God, didn't get any clarification. Thanks for the pointers.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then do it-

You are operating on the premise that intelligence was required for these events to take place. You have evidence of occurrence, but no evidence of intelligence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Value estimate has to have something there accurately to estimate. With no basis, the value judgment has no basis either.

It's basis is personal. That's what a value judgement is. Value judgement - "An assessment of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities." See? According to your own standards and priorities.

This really isn't hard. A value judgement is relative to the person making it. There is no correct and accurate version - if there were, it wouldn't be a value judgement.

 

[ratiocinator]

done
---
So there are 3 alternatives

1 you admit that I already presented objective evidence for God

2 Spot the mistake and correct it

3 change the topic, change the goal post or find an excuse for accepting this evidence

2. It's riddled with baseless assumptions and, even if we accepted them all, it wouldn't be an argument for any god.

 

[ratiocinator]

Noticed how you moved the goal posts, first you said who we are doesn't require an exact judge for us to have an exact reality. When that is proven, now you trying to say we don't have an exact reality to who we are.

This is simply false. I maintained from the start (#181) that both your claims (an exact value and that we need a judge) were baseless. You haven't proved either.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I do not debate anyone who is "ready to be convinces". That is a clear way of saying his mind is already made up and he just wants to try to prove others are wrong.

 

[leroy]

I've seen it happen countless times. Then it's really silly when I'm trying to convince who you are is not an illusion, but been at that road with atheists before.

I agree, some internet atheists are like flat earthers,

 

[Wildswanderer]

It was deliberate. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I think people do believe because their isn't evidence against that they can find. But that is fallacious reasoning and should be avoided. I stand unconvinced, simply. I'll leave it up to the people making the claim to provide sufficient evidence if that is their prerogative. My studies have lead me to a place where I can open mindedly respect the beliefs of others without adopting them in the absence of proof.

Have you actually tried talking to God or is this all just a mental process?
You can not reject something you have never attempted, IMO.

 

[leroy]

You are operating on the premise that intelligence was required for these events to take place. You have evidence of occurrence, but no evidence of intelligence.

Then please redefine “objective evidence” because I did provided objective evidence based on your definition.

 

[Nimos]

That’s too vague.

Flatearthers use the same “tactic”

I would say that a good start, would be to demonstrate that something is seemingly intelligent designed and that there is a requirement for such design being as it is, and that this is the best explanation.

 

[ratiocinator]

Have you actually tried talking to God or is this all just a mental process?
You can not reject something you have never attempted, IMO.

How many (of the thousands of) different gods have you tried talking to? Have you tried to contact the lizard aliens from Alpha Centauri? Have you done an exhaustive investigation into pots of gold at the end of rainbows to rule out leprechauns?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then please redefine “objective evidence” because I did provided objective evidence based on your definition.

No, you did not.

 

[leroy]

2. It's riddled with baseless assumptions and, even if we accepted them all, it wouldn't be an argument for any god.

Ok then redefine “objective evidence” so that I can know what you mean.

 

[Muffled]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

I am already convinced on many things. I believe a readiness helps but what is your criteria for being convinced. If you have to have something beyond the realm of possibility there will be no convincing you.

 

[leroy]

No, you did not.

This is your defintion

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be supported without personal bias through systematic means such as analysis, testing, experiment, measurement, and observation.

1 I provided inofrmation based on facts

2 supported without personal bias through systematic means

Obviously I understand that your definition is incomplete, so I give you the opportunity to provide a good definition

 

[syo]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

ok. who created you? answer: God

 

[Muffled]

I'm a Left Hand Path Hindu person. If you debate me, my stance will be explaining that there's a vast world outside of the most popular religion, Christianity, and focus on thinking outside the box and kind of exploring that. On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being best, my current debate skill level is I'd say a 4.5, usually I'm not that serious on this forum - but I'll make an exception should we decide to talk.

I believe daughter of Shiva means hot stuff because he is the fire god right?

 

[leroy]

I would say that a good start, would be to demonstrate that something is seemingly intelligent designed and that there is a requirement for such design being as it is, and that this is the best explanation.

Ok and what characteristics would something that is “seemingly defined” should have?

 

[Muffled]

Critical thinking and skepticism led me to Atheism. For a little background. I have an associates in religion, a bachelor's in theology, an associates in philosophy, and am a law student. I've always been fascinated by world religions and have continued my education on the subject in spite of my other studies. In answer to your question, " What am I willing to be convinced of"? I'm willing to be convinced of the truth. I want my model of reality to match actual reality as closely as possible. I find discourse to be one of the many tools we can use to root out fallacious beliefs that would misalign our model of reality with actual reality. I'm very open to changing my mind if the evidence warrants it. I like science am not static.

I believe you have reached the right person; I have the truth.