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 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
- Individual Converts
- All Theists
- Atheist is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods”
- Atheistism is “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”
- Agnostic is “a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something”
- Agnosticism is “a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods”
- Theist is “a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods”
- Theism is “belief in the existence of a god or gods”
“When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion.”
“The intergenerational decline follows clear patterns of transmission of parental religious characteristics to children.”
Pro has wholly dropped this, and by showing at least one convert I have already won the debate. Extend.
Pro has dropped that no one is born as a theist, rather they are all converts. Extend.
Asking for other peoples evidence instead of my own is a little weird…
“consciousness, free will or a presumed personal responsibility, personhood, rationality, duties, and human value—not to mention the beginning, fine-tuning, and beauties of the universe. These are hardly surprising if a good, personal, conscious, rational, creative, powerful, and wise God exists. However, these phenomena are quite startling or shocking if they are the result of deterministic, valueless, non-conscious, unguided, non-rational material processes.”
“are those the ones looking for evidence or are they relying on faith in the existence of a god?”
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, people do not begin with faith, rather all converts got that way through exposure to enough evidence to convince them. In the current population this has occurred billions of times .
I have already proven people budging countless times.
See definitions in my R1 preamble .
Already proven false .
- Andrew Klavan – Jewish-American writer who went from atheist to agnostic to Christian.
- Bruce Cockburn – Canadian folk/rock guitarist and singer/songwriter (former agnostic)
- Arnold Lunn – skier, mountaineer, and writer; as an agnostic he wrote Roman Converts, which took a critical view of Catholicism and the converts to it; later converted to Catholicism due to debating with converts, and became an apologist for the faith, although he retained a few criticisms of it.
Once again, I proved a convert from atheism to Catholicism (a branch of theism) in R1, which was never challenged on any grounds. Vote con.
II. All Theists:
Pro claims that me catching him dropping an argument is somehow “an accusation of me saying something” and a strawman. He has offered no sign of any misattributed quotation.
If all theists are converts from non-theism, then I have already won with some simple hand waving to indicate the billions currently on our planet.
The closest to a challenge pro’s able to offer is special pleading that they were not actually non-theists if they were able to convert, but no warrant is ever used to justify this claim. If he were correct, then the branch of theism people fall into would be wholly random rather than learned behavior; Christians would raise reincarnated buddhist babies and have no ability to intercede; likewise Christ never would have needed to die on the Cross, since Christians would have randomly been born with faith in that. … This is needless to say, pure absurdity.
Pro claims he missed this section, when all he needs to do is scroll up to the evidence heading in R2. Extend.
“They do not "begin" with faith , sure.”
Reminder against his above assertions that people are born into faith, that he already conceded they are not. Instead faith is something that begins with evidence (weak or strong, it’s still enough evidence to convince).
“Will you find a science experiment, chalk board with mathematical equations in the "holy temple"?”
Notably, pro has dropped that there exists an entire branch of theism wholly based around empirical evidence.
Further, pro refuses to read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti monster, even while it’s a prerequisite reading to really debate this topic. I invite him to come back and debate after he has done so (for context: for comedic effect, I’m mirroring complaints he made in another debate).
“There's no budging.”
Rather than refuting anything I’ve said, or so how what he says rose above a fallacy, he outright asks me to try to explain his points for him… No.
“The agnostic view still exists.”
Pro inists the former agnostics later had faith so could not have converted. This more non-sequitur and No True Scotsman fallacies.
I have shown people converting due to evidence, both from atheism and agnosticism. Pro insists not once in the history of the world has this happened, yet refuses to refute the evidence of it having done so countless times.
I think what you said just prove the topic statement true. I'm going to give this site the benefit of the doubt and you, the voters and others are just not understanding me.
God need not be proven real to the voter, so long as converts such as myself were proven real to them; thereby proving the resolution false.
Vote on that question as well.
Thank you both for voting!
How many of you think God has been proven to be real?
Excellent timekeeper you are.
Will do soon
I hope you all enjoyed the debate.
Of course, vote please.
90 minutes remain for you to post your final argument.
If Mall proclaims to be a thinking being, and, potentially, an example of the "paragon of animals," with the ability to manipulate elements [such as hydrogen and oxygen], dare I challenge Mall to produce a molecule of those two elements that has at least four separate physical construct phases [a fluid, a solid, a gas, and a plasma]? If non-intelligent random selection can produce such a molecule, surely a thinking person can do so, too. Or, does it require intelligence even greater than the "paragon of animals?"
I'm an atheist right now, but I sometimes am Christian if I think the evidence is there. Atheists and agnostics can convert to Christianity any time they feel like it.
I'm guessing you had this and the Trump debate confused?
While I don't care to actually debate it, as a hypothetical, here is my argument that Trump isn't racist: As reported by various liberal arts majors, racism is strictly systemic, so an individual cannot be racist; ergo, Donald cannot be racist.
And yes, that is shit. It's shit that conforms to a popular flawed set of beliefs which is in the zeitgeist, but still shit.
Oh nvm I thought he was pro