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

[infrabenji]

So you haven't already decided then? That's good.

Nope, I'm totally open to new ideas and am excited to be here. I sincerely hope that, though maybe some but not all my beliefs will change, I can learn from my peers and become a better, more communicative, and well rounded person. That way I may have more meaningful experiences and a greater impact on the well being of my peers. I sincerely hope that someone can present sufficient evidence for their claims and force me to change my position. That would really be something. A new experience for me and one I would welcome. If anything just to test my own intellectual honesty and ability to accept new information and adjust my beliefs accordingly. Haven't done that in what seems like forever. Probably since I became an atheist lol. Thank you for the encouragement.

 

[Trailblazer]

Haven't done that in what seems like forever. Probably since I became an atheist lol.

When and why did you become an atheist?

 

[infrabenji]

Do you want a debate because you want to be convinced that a religion is true or do you want a debate to show that religion is wrong?

Sorry I came in late on this thread. I saw it when you posted it earlier but I had to go out so I missed what people posted and I cannot catch up tonight.

Hi, sorry you missed it. It was great! I'm an atheist so I automatically take the negative position. I was hoping we might see some game changers either way tonight but it was really more of a conversation about what they believe. I thought they were really pleasant and I had a good time. Not really any hard hitting epistemology or apologetics. Just friendly banter for the most part. Most of the hard hitting stuff came after the debate in the forum from people who I believe were watching the thread. Thanks for checking in. Hope you change some hearts and minds for the better tonight. Have a good one.

 

[stvdv]

Emoji's don't really hide your disdain

There was not 1 mg of disdain in my mind

Which God would you be talking about?

Exactly, that is the first thing to define, before talking about God makes sense to me

Your god?

No, your God definition, as you started the thread

I think anyone would be offended at being called lazy

Hence I added (passively). But you are right, in my other reply I wrote 'lazy'. I forgot it here, my mistake, as I meant 'lazy' to not offend, just meaning 'not active'

Reason I use 'lazy' probably comes from the interview with my Master, in which He told everyone (including me), this boy is sometimes lazy. I did not feel offended, because it is true, I am sometimes lazy (sometimes even very lazy). And I am fine with that even.

I think you're in the wrong place.

Can one ever be in the wrong place, at the wrong time?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Critical thinking and skepticism. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know" when sufficient evidence has not been furnished to warrant a belief. Also, I'm not afraid of being wrong. So I decided to go online and test the truth of my beliefs. I imagine there will be a lot of I don't knows on my part. I don't believe in absolute certainty so the sky's the limit. Looking forward to a debate. Thanks for the question. I hope I answered it sufficiently.

@infrabenji welcome to the forum. I have to say, reading your first response to people make me believe you have a healthy thought prosess

 

[Marcion]

I sincerely hope that someone can present sufficient evidence for their claims and force me to change my position.

If you are only willing to be persuaded by objective evidence then you will surely remain an atheist.
I think that is what stvdv meant with laziness.
Atheism is indeed a kind of laziness in that it puts forward the dogma that only information coming from or of the objective world can lead to insights and a change of perspective.
It is perhaps similar to the laziness of the religious fundamentalist who is satisfied with the dogma that their scriptures must be true because they were sanctioned by God and who will not accept anything that deviates from this dogma.

 

[infrabenji]

When and why did you become an atheist?[/QUOTE

When and why did you become an atheist?

I'm gonna hit the hay. I'll see you again on the forum and I'll be happy to answer your question. It's a good one. Hope you have an awesome night. Take care.

 

[atanu]

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?

Why you are looking for debate? What or who motivates you?

 

[firedragon]

There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone. Hundreds of thousands of other religions. As an atheist I assume the negative stance in a debate. It is the role of the affirmative stance to prove their claims. Will their evidence meet the burden of proof? So, in answer to your question I'll debate any topic on religion I find interesting. I prefer debates that are as, I just told another person, good natured and thought provoking. I am not static. My mind can be changed. I look to the affirmative to present the evidence for their claim. Whatever that may be. Using the best methodologies, we currently have for determining the truth value of claims, I contrast my beliefs with others. I may change some of my beliefs or the beliefs of others in the process. I may not. All I ask is that all parties including myself are intellectually honest. I hope this answers your question.

Well. I give you the position of what you claimed. That you are intellectually honest, and you are a good person.

But that did not answer my question. I have given you many aspects of discussions in theology because your whole thread was on debating theology. So there are many aspects of it. What you did here is define your post again.

I understand that you will assume the negative stance in debate because obviously atheism is what it is. A Theism. These are all given brother. We dont really need to define all of that again. So in this thread what are you trying to discuss? Again may I ask? Is it whether God exists or not? Is it "which God"? Or is it "which book"? Or is it a structured criticism of a textual nature of a particular scripture or book? Or is it the history of occurrences during or after this so called "deliverance of the religion"?

Which one? Thats the question. I hope you understand.

 

[infrabenji]

If you are only willing to be persuaded by objective evidence then you will surely remain an atheist.
I think that is what stvdv meant with laziness.
Atheism is indeed a kind of laziness in that it puts forward the dogma that only information coming from or of the objective world can lead to insights and a change of perspective.
It is perhaps similar to the laziness of the religious fundamentalist who is satisfied with the dogma that their scriptures must be true because they were sanctioned by God and who will not accept anything that deviates from this dogma.

Alright last one, what is the best type or form of subjective evidence you have. I only have time for one so make it your best one. Can it meet any burden of proof? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi, sorry you missed it. It was great! I'm an atheist so I automatically take the negative position. I was hoping we might see some game changers either way tonight but it was really more of a conversation about what they believe. I thought they were really pleasant and I had a good time. Not really any hard hitting epistemology or apologetics. Just friendly banter for the most part. Most of the hard hitting stuff came after the debate in the forum from people who I believe were watching the thread. Thanks for checking in. Hope you change some hearts and minds for the better tonight. Have a good one.

I will try to catch up tomorrow if I have time. I have to answer posts on my own thread Does God need excuses? but I hope that slows down.

One thing I failed to mention what I was talking to you about my religion on the other thread is that Baha'is do not try to convince people because an important teaching is that everyone seeking the truth should to do an independent investigation and decide for themselves what to believe. That does not mean I cannot answer your questions and explain my beliefs, it just means your choice should be your own.

 

[infrabenji]

Well. I give you the position of what you claimed. That you are intellectually honest, and you are a good person.

But that did not answer my question. I have given you many aspects of discussions in theology because your whole thread was on debating theology. So there are many aspects of it. What you did here is define your post again.

I understand that you will assume the negative stance in debate because obviously atheism is what it is. A Theism. These are all given brother. We dont really need to define all of that again. So in this thread what are you trying to discuss? Again may I ask? Is it whether God exists or not? Is it "which God"? Or is it "which book"? Or is it a structured criticism of a textual nature of a particular scripture or book? Or is it the history of occurrences during or after this so called "deliverance of the religion"?

Which one? Thats the question. I hope you understand.

Oh sorry I'm tired. It was a person who follows the left hand path in hinduism. Mostly it was just hyperbole about how her religion works. They were a little disjointed. So we decided to just simplify things and define god then we got sidetracked but yeah I think we were headed in the direction of a debate about whether god could exist and then move on to personal beliefs but the personal beliefs and testimony came first after all. It was uncommon for them to debate and I think given more time the conversation would have been less disjointed. But all in all a fun and informative conversation. Hope that answers your question. I'm beat. I gotta hit the sack. lol Thanks for your patience.

 

[Marcion]

Alright last one, what is the best type or form of subjective evidence you have. I only have time for one so make it your best one. Can it meet any burden of proof? I'm genuinely interested.

The thing about subjective information, is that it is only meaningful for the one who experiences it themself.
So I cannot "prove" anything to you, you will have to get those subjective experiences yourself and be convinced that they are real or not (if you interpret them as your own imaginations).
That is why I said that I cannot debate this the way you want it, so in fact I am off-topic.

When it comes to God, it is up to God to reach out to you, to grant you that experience or to postpone it till later or much later. You do play a role in that, but it will not happen by an intelectual challenge alone.
You can lead a happy life as an atheist or as an agnostic person. Whether that satisfies your deepest longings is a personal thing.

 

[firedragon]

Oh sorry I'm tired. It was a person who follows the left hand path in hinduism. Mostly it was just hyperbole about how her religion works. They were a little disjointed. So we decided to just simplify things and define god then we got sidetracked but yeah I think we were headed in the direction of a debate about whether god could exist and then move on to personal beliefs but the personal beliefs and testimony came first after all. It was uncommon for them to debate and I think given more time the conversation would have been less disjointed. But all in all a fun and informative conversation. Hope that answers your question. I'm beat. I gotta hit the sack. lol Thanks for your patience.

I understand.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope, I'm totally open to new ideas and am excited to be here. I sincerely hope that, though maybe some but not all my beliefs will change, I can learn from my peers and become a better, more communicative, and well rounded person. That way I may have more meaningful experiences and a greater impact on the well being of my peers. I sincerely hope that someone can present sufficient evidence for their claims and force me to change my position. That would really be something. A new experience for me and one I would welcome. If anything just to test my own intellectual honesty and ability to accept new information and adjust my beliefs accordingly. Haven't done that in what seems like forever. Probably since I became an atheist lol. Thank you for the encouragement.

I have no interest in forcing you to change your position, nor do I have much appetite for circuitous arguments in which logic and reason are asked to prove or disprove that which transcends both.

Happy enough to exchange views with a open minded person though. Even to lock horns occasionally, from a position of mutual respect.

 

[infrabenji]

The thing about subjective information, is that it is only meaningful for the one who experiences it themself.
So I cannot "prove" anything to you, you will have to get those subjective experiences yourself and be convinced that they are real or not (if you interpret them as your own imaginations).
That is why I said that I cannot debate this the way you want it, so in fact I am off-topic.

When it comes to God, it is up to God to reach out to you, to grant you that experience or to postpone it till later or much later. You do play a role in that, but it will not happen by an intelectual challenge alone.
You can lead a happy life as an atheist or as an agnostic person. Whether that satisfies your deepest longings is a personal thing.

Very fascinating. I'll think about that tonight. Hope you have an awesome evening.

 

[Nimos]

Agnostics and atheists both have two distinct definitions, a philosophical and a colloquial (I denote them by capitalizing the philosophical position).
An Atheists says "there is no god".
An atheists says "I don't believe in (your) god".
An agnostic says "I don't know if a god exists".
An Agnostics says "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you".
Note that the philosophical definitions denote positions, whereas the colloquial definitions just describe inner states.

That is not entirely true. The agnostic/atheist label is a bit confusing I think.

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being. However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.

So it is perfectly fine for a person to identify as an atheist, with the idea that they see no evidence for a god and that it led them to hold that position. Even if they admit that such knowledge about God existences is not certain. That doesn't change the fact, that we see no evidence for one.

 

[infrabenji]

I have no interest in forcing you to change your position, nor do I have much appetite for circuitous arguments in which logic and reason are asked to prove or disprove that which transcends both.

Happy enough to exchange views with a open minded person though. Even to lock horns occasionally, from a position of mutual respect.

Strawman arguments aside, Critical thinking, The laws of logic, logical fallacies, and the scientific method are the best tools we currently have for determining the truth of claims made. Just as you are making the claim that there is something that transcends both reason and logic. Can you demonstrate in any way that that which transcends does in fact transcend both. Is there anything subjectively or objectively you care to present in favor of your claim?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Strawman arguments aside, Critical thinking, The laws of logic, logical fallacies, and the scientific method are the best tools we currently have for determining the truth of claims made. Just as you are making the claim that there is something that transcends both reason and logic. Can you demonstrate in any way that that which transcends does in fact transcend both. Is there anything subjectively or objectively you care to present in favor of your claim?

Speaking only for my self, i think you will find that a spiritual person has no need to "prove" to others that their belief is "scientific correct"
It is an awakening from within that has no need to be scientific proven, other than to those who disbelieve in spiritual practice

 

[RestlessSoul]

Strawman arguments aside, Critical thinking, The laws of logic, logical fallacies, and the scientific method are the best tools we currently have for determining the truth of claims made. Just as you are making the claim that there is something that transcends both reason and logic. Can you demonstrate in any way that that which transcends does in fact transcend both. Is there anything subjectively or objectively you care to present in favor of your claim?

Well straight away we run into trouble, because I do not accept your basic premise, nor do I acknowledge the terms you have set to frame the debate.

However, your question is worthy of a response, and I will get back to you when i have the time. I'm just about to go outside into that thing called the real world.