Atheists and Agnostics can never convert to theism, ever.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Atheists looking for empirical, Practical, Observable, Solid scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods will never ever but never become theists in that manner.
Atheists say their open to the existence of a god or gods by a vehicle of evidence. This means they cannot convert to theism or deism for that matter.
Likewise with agnostics, It's more clear cut with them as they say there isn't enough information or knowledge. They simply say we can't know anything in regards to the existence of a super natural being. So right there in that steadfast stance, There's no budging.
This challenge to refute points made in this topic is also encouraged/offered to the theists to take on.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Arguments: Pro erred in the beginning proposal by not offering finite definitions of his terms. Con replied by by offering that "atheist" and "agnostic" are universal terms that remain defined as a block of individuals [plural] of the same view. Therefore, the effort by Pro to then attempt distinction of specialization of beliefs of atheists and agnostics fails. Pro proposes a question in r2: "The logic behind it really has a lot to do with what religion is," but has not previously mentioned "religion," let alone define the term in order for readers to understand his point "what religion is." Pro further errs in r2 by asking, "Do these individuals now rely on faith..." making the same mistake of avoiding definition, let alone previous mention of the term. Con offered specific evidence of atheists/agnostics who have converted to the three most prominent religions of the world; sufficient evidence to refute Pro's resolution. Points to Con
Sources: Pro offered no sources whatsoever. Con provided valid and searchable sources to support his arguments. Points to Con
S&G: Only because understanding what Pro meant by substituting "their" for "they're," and giving CAPS when not necessary does Pro win a tie on this factor.
Conduct: Pro forfeited the last round. Point to Con
pro forfeited and failed to negate con's list of people who have converted.
Basically just going to make this advice for pro...
It seems like the resolution you wanted to have is "the scientific method does not point toward converting into any religion." Instead you wrote it wrong, and refused to defend your case when lists of famous converts was offered, as was the dual nature of the resolution to which you did not produce arguments aside from special pleading.
Of course conduct is penalized for missing a round.
I'd say it's a bloodline trait at this point.
accurate. Come to think of it, I have a family member who constantly pronounces "Arkansas" as "Ar- kansas" instead of "Arkansaw"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-Wd453wq4
LOL yeah, someone called me out on that recently, I've been using the expression wrong my entire life without questioning it.
it's 'case in point' not 'case and point'.
Win/lose is based on the echo chamber over here. That's already been established. That's regardless of truth and education. A republican in a pool of democrats, it goes to the majority.
Well lookey here, watch this , I make this clear every debate challenge and that is for clarity, send questions.
If you, you, truly don't understand something, you have no business taking the debate until there is absolutely noooo confusion about anything.
That means you know for sure what a person means and what's meant by every word used.
Those descriptions are very detailed. But when you don't understand them, seek to get understanding.
Wanted the resolve to be*
A resolve should have a clear pro and con and convey an important specific idea to be contended over. Either your resolves are too vague or they don't convey the specific idea that you want to support in your arguments. So then your opponent ends up attacking the actual resolve rather than what you wanted the result to be and since you don't address their arguments but instead the resolve that you wanted to discuss then you end up losing the debate
My friend your resolves are not well thought out That's not something you can just disagree with
I will have to disgree with the criticisms. You can accept or reject that. That's all there is to it
I will say for sure that criticisms should be reserved for those who are lost on the meaning of pluralism. No points for getting that wrong .
Dude, @MisterChris was just trying to give some constructive criticism. You just gotta realise that your presentation needs some work. Maybe think your resolves through a little more.
Case & point 2
Like I said, and this goes to all of you, you have folks that agree with you and I have folks likewise. All I have to do is market them to this site. I'm pretty much the loner out of the crowd I associate with when it comes to visiting this site.
So the topics are good and challenging to you apparently and therefore you accept them. Don't accept anything that's no real challenge to you.
Please people,no more unfounded counseling.
Thanks, much obliged.
Case & point.
If I'm what you choose to call stubborn, then I'd advise you to not accept any challenges from me.
If I were you, I wouldn't debate anybody that's unconventional, has their own mind, own way, own setup and procedure.
Now remember, if you don't understand something and want to know what I mean, please present plenty of questions before accepting any debate anywhere, really. I mean ask plenty of questions.
You can also test the waters on potential debate topics in the forums.
You really need to stop being so stubborn and self-examine . It's not that your ideas are bad. In fact, I'd be inclined to agree with some of them... It's the way you present them that needs work. Absolute statements and obvious hyperbole is a good way to create a BoP so gigantic for yourself you'll never be able to fulfill it. If you'd just operate within the formal debate framework properly, you'd be able to garner more respect from other users.
You would be well off to read the debate guide and terms list in the DebateArt forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
Didn't even need another round. The strongest irrefutable point was already made.
Sometimes there's just not enough time. A day job and what not, you know how it is.
But that was my last response to the debate. Ran out of time to elaborate. But if know this site, most likely it would've of mattered.
"Yes I can prove it is a universal statement. "Athiests" is a plural form of the noun "athiest," which thus implies you are referring to all athiests with the above statements. "
Please prove that "plural" means all instead of just MORE THAN ONE.
When I say people, that doesn't necessarily mean ALL PEOPLE. It just means more than one.
Please slow down and be careful with these words. They're not to be thrown around.
"I'm really not sure what PRO is even saying here. "
Do you understand what an individual thought process is?
Are you really thinking that everybody thinks the same?
If this is fact, proved that all agnostic/atheists views are right down to the "T" exact between each person.
You may be realizing now that this is a foolish point you attempted to make and in a pretense manner, now backing out of it.
"I don't know, you'd have to ask them."
Hold on, now this is very important. This is where you have to make your strongest argument if not the only.
The questions are, what is a theist ?
How does one generally, basically become one?
You're absolutely dead right, the resolution is a falsism
I've literally heard that one twisted around by holocaust deniers.
His fault is that it is being too radical. It is like saying “because the Germans caused the holocaust, nothing they do is ever correct”.
Meh, his own fault for wording it badly
I think he is probably telling us that "Non-theists will have a hard time converting to theism" instead of the actual resolution.
Epic topic! 🤣
Still... I'd like something with substance, not a last min rant lol
Don't worry. he never forfeits in these days. Though he might type long rants of basically gish gallop...
22 hours.
I hope so.
And then refuse to give an argument even if I waive and request it (this has happened). He has no concept of Burden of Proof.
I'd bet money old mall is gonna wait until the last minute to say that the description is his first round. I wonder if this comment will change that
Slightly, though I think it's demonstrable that Atheists and Agnostics 'have converted to theism, at times.
I don't really have a habit of reading Mall's debates, but I suppose I'll check for a bit to see how this one goes between Mall and MisterChris.
IDK why this was ever thought to be a good topic, but as someone who as experienced both sides of the equation, I'll take it.
Interested?
Um...This is a falsism.