Instigator / Pro
4
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2695

Atheists and agnostics can never as specified convert to theism.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

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.

Case and point. Either that or bias.

You guys that say it's possible to change belief systems, I truly think that you have not understood a word I've said.

I sincerely believe live debates would convey much greater understanding.

-->
@Mall

I’m an atheist and I’d also been Christian multiple times. It’s possible to change belief systems.

-->
@Benjamin

That's blatantly false

Atheism is the opposite of theism, the faith that God does not exist

Agnosticism is the position where one has not taken a conclusion, due to lack of evidence

-->
@Mall

I disagree with your definition of agnostic. I've always understood it that an agnostic is not someone who CANNOT be convinced by evidence, only someone who believes it is impossible to tell based on the evidence they currently have. Atheists are also open to evidence but believe that the current evidence weighs heavily enough in favor of "God doesn't exist" as to support that stance.

"a vehicle of evidence"

Hillarious joke Mall, you get that one

Relieving to know I am not alone.

This site is so much more pleasant

-->
@Benjamin

No, we all recogonize that guy and have bad memories with the dude.

Wait, will mods take me now?

This will be fun.
I recently started debating online and got to know this site

Hopefully, no comments like this will occur here:

"Let me take a wild stab right to the genitalia of the very last organs in yeast infection resurrection that even before look that our hero Pro MUST be a teeny bopper with a fractured skull, Not educated in the slightest, Not intelligent in the slightest, Hasn't even been of a god damned date except with himself for a feel to only bother his flying uterus from beyond."

-Debate.org

-->
@Mall

No.... that's not at all true, your resolution implies that the actual motivation for converting doesn't matter, only that they did. Also, tons of theists say they have scientific groundings for their religion... As a former theist, I believed in science and religion. You have no idea what you're talking about here.

-->
@TheMorningsStar

I literally used myself as evidence to clearly refute the resolution, when I previously took part in an iteration of this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2377-atheists-and-agnostics-can-never-convert-to-theism-ever

To prove the statement incorrect, someone would have to show that they can be religious while having scientific proof of their religion at the same time . It's an oxymoron which looks like is more clearer now than ever before.

Wouldn't all someone needs to do to win is point to an ex-atheist? If anyone needs to do so then just use me as an example.

Yes sir. Well the only way to know if there are new arguments is if we got some takers .

-->
@Mall

That's because you've already had this debate, and lost.... nearly everytime (you might have actually lost everytime if I missed something), and all of the votes are logically consistent. No one wants to debate the same argument over and over again, whenever there seems to be no sign of you actually engaging in arguments or any noticable evolution in your arguments

Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .