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

[infrabenji]

I was just saying that you could start a thread in the One on One forum and in the opening post, meaning the first post, write some of your thoughts to begin things. Begin the debate.

But I forgot for a second you were new. If it would be easier for me to start the thread, and begin the discussion/debate, let me know. I can do it.

Sounds great! Lets do it!

 

[JoshuaTree]

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.

So you claim to be an atheist, the burden of proof is on you, you have proof there is no God?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sounds great! Lets do it!

Okay. I'll try to create the opening post within a couple hours. Could even be longer. You should get a notification to view it when it pops up.

 

[infrabenji]

So you claim to be an atheist, the burden of proof is on you, you have proof there is no God?

Lol It's okay. Take a moment to google the burden of proof. Atheist by definition are not making a claim simply rejecting one. You see how they are not the same thing. You're shifting the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy. And the idea of God or no God is what's known as an unfalsifiable claim. You've got some googling to do. Come back though. All I ask is that you're intellectually honest and acknowledge when your arguments are fallacious. Doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means you're not static, but a dynamic individual subject to change.

 

[infrabenji]

Okay. I'll try to create the opening post within a couple hours. Could even be longer. You should get a notification to view it when it pops up.

cool! I've got my eye out.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Lol It's okay. Take a moment to google the burden of proof. Atheist by definition are not making a claim simply rejecting one. You see how they are not the same thing. You're shifting the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy. And the idea of God or no God is what's known as an unfalsifiable claim. You've got some googling to do. Come back though. All I ask is that you're intellectually honest and acknowledge when your arguments are fallacious. Doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means you're not static, but a dynamic individual subject to change.

But you are a deliberate atheist, you must have proof there is no God, right? How am I not intellectually honest? Are you sure you are an atheist?

 

[infrabenji]

But you are a deliberate atheist, you must have proof there is no God, right? How am I not intellectually honest? Are you sure you are an atheist?

I'm not even sure it's possible for a god or gods to exist. Deliberate is me making decisions about my beliefs in a deliberate way. Applying critical thinking, the laws of logic, and identifying and applying logical fallacies. It has nothing to do with unfalsifiable claims. Again, I simply haven't found sufficient evidence to warrant belief in any god or gods. It's time you went to googling. Wikipedia has a great page for you on logical fallacies.

 

[rational experiences]

I've had proof there is no God when science removed earths mass and formed sink holes.

I was irradiated attacked. No God anymore. Just a hole.

I saw spirit images arise in cause and effect.

I believe humanity believed god was our own father. A human. As his life spiritual was recorded by voice and human image.

My stance is spiritual evidence.

So if you don't name spirit as science had then God by human definition is just natural causes.

My argument is spiritual by effects.

And if you claim no God then no form of any kind is inferred.

I believe intelligence would accept God as all form is formed.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I'm not even sure it's possible for a god or gods to exist. Deliberate is me making decisions about my beliefs in a deliberate way. Applying critical thinking, the laws of logic, and identifying and applying logical fallacies. It has nothing to do with unfalsifiable claims. Again, I simply haven't found sufficient evidence to warrant belief in any god or gods. It's time you went to googling. Wikipedia has a great page for you on logical fallacies.

Well deliberate sounds to me like you have proof there is no God, that has to be interesting, care to share? If you were an accidental atheist then wouldn't you be searching for that lightening bolt to change your life? Maybe that's why you are here, you are fated to be here?

 

[JoshuaTree]

...lightening bolt, yeah.

 

[infrabenji]

Well deliberate sounds to me like you have proof there is no God, that has to be interesting, care to share? If you were an accidental atheist then wouldn't you be searching for that lightening bolt to change your life? Maybe that's why you are here, you are fated to be here?

Lol, you're still shifting the burden of proof. I don't think you're doing as much googling as you should. What you're currently engaged in is called circular reasoning. Keep trying though. I know with a little more time in the books you'll get it. Best of luck to you in your endeavor for knowledge. Come back in a few years and we'll debate. You should probably start, at least if you're talking to an atheist, with what an atheist actually is and what position we hold.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Would you not believe something is true, or would you believe something is not true? Only one is atheistic and there is a deep possibility that you wouldn’t know when someone lies with out faith in no, instead of dis-belief in yes.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I posted up my thread.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Lol, you're still shifting the burden of proof. I don't think you're doing as much googling as you should. What you're currently engaged in is called circular reasoning. Keep trying though. I know with a little more time in the books you'll get it. Best of luck to you in your endeavor for knowledge. Come back in a few years and we'll debate. You should probably start, at least if you're talking to an atheist, with what an atheist actually is and what position we hold.

So all atheist believe exactly the same thing as you do, kinda like a religion or something? Why do I have to Google that's why can't you tell me what position you and all atheist hold and we could go from there?

 

[infrabenji]

So all atheist believe exactly the same thing as you do, kinda like a religion or something? Why do I have to Google that's why can't you tell me what position you and all atheist hold and we could go from there?

I've told you bud. We reject the claim that there are gods because there is not sufficient evidence to believe a god or gods exist. It's simply a position one holds. Free of claims, religion, and requires no burden of proof. By we I mean the definition of atheists you refuse to look up for some reason. Are you just trolling? I have real conversations with other people this drawing me away from. If you genuinely are interested in learning I suggest you do some research. Pick one topic supported by one claim and we'll go from there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So you claim to be an atheist, the burden of proof is on you, you have proof there is no God?

Wait? What?

How can you prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

 

[rational experiences]

What I learnt. Old science was God science. O earth as the God terms. Including gas goddess terms.

Science told science that science is wrong.

Old science was first as new.... science as science so all science is wrong. As new science was first science of God.

Science hence said you God science theists are wrong where is God?

Man brain self destructive brain prickling irradiation. Loss of DNA in past depravity brain mind. All humans owned. Our mutation.

God gone sin of man formed a hole. Mind says exactly what it knew as brain of science said there is no God. Hole instead. Says his argument correct about old science there is no God.

Self destructive personality disorder inherited. New scientist. Information why a hole exists.

Old scientist taught new scientist by old wisdom science itself is wrong. God present is the only god O earth.

Argument today science the topic a practice human chosen.

Teaching of my brother the scientist now heard by my non science female psyche..... sun collided it's mass ejection with earth as speed of light origins.

First cause consuming sun owned sink hole as slower sun mass asteroids from outside of mass projected by colder sun mass had remained in space.

Speed of light hit earth mass it exploded by depth level of earths held fused mass owning and formed all dusts. Origin earth god creation of the particle.

Particles from out of space fall onto ground by mass. Small rocks. Or specks not origin earths dust particles. Gods particles.

Man said particle mass burning origins equalled speed of light into a gas that cooled it. Yet the collision owned origin of particle of earths explosion.

Consuming sun mass cooled that hit earth mass. Consuming activated particle release yet stopped consuming.

The sun speed consumer had slowed by entering earths heavens so sink holes stopped being bored. Instant moment sun radiation cooled inside mass.

Reason sun dragging all planets with it attacked gods forcing Universe into deep space the whole time.

Space pressure stopped attack.

Why a man's mind today communicated to in status Ai communicators about holes says there is no God as he removed earths mass himself.

Scientist said aliens in space model holographic recorded earth memories taught him design of science via step by step visionary advice. Records in gas mass of stars. Communicated back to earth.

Why science says there is no God. Why science says God is planet earth. Why science said earth dusts are the God particles.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I've told you bud. We reject the claim that there are gods because there is not sufficient evidence to believe a god or gods exist. It's simply a position one holds. Free of claims, religion, and requires no burden of proof. By we I mean the definition of atheists you refuse to look up for some reason. Are you just trolling? I have real conversations with other people this drawing me away from. If you genuinely are interested in learning I suggest you do some research. Pick one topic supported by one claim and we'll go from there.

Ok, I pick your use of deliberate based upon logic, rational thinking, etc. If there is no proof God exists and no proof God doesn't exist then whatever position you take is a belief, not a truth. Do you believe God could exist, or have you deliberately ruled out that possibility? I certainly apologize if I misunderstood your position that you made a deliberate decision to believe God doesn't exist as such a decision would require proof wouldnt it?

 

[Magical Wand]

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?

Nice post. I wonder what you think about William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument.

(I don't endorse the argument, but I think that this is one of the best arguments for the existence of God, and so any atheist -- who wants to explore the question of God's existence -- must deal with it).

 

[JoshuaTree]

What? What?

How can you prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

I'd comment but concerned you'd tell me go google myself ha ha.