Is it possible to debate anymore?

[Dionysos]

Let's all try and stop being cheeky to each other, show some respect, and answer the title of this debate without demonstrating the very behaviour that this thread is about. Thank you.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

if you cannot prove that something exists, then its fair to believe it doesnt exist.

there is no proof and so no reason to believe it does exist - if it does exit it isnt observable by any means and so it might as well not exist. debates work on the basis that you have evidence to support your argument, lately you been runnin on faith [

Everybody runs on faith. Where is the proof of your godless reality? There is none, so you have defeated yourself at your own argument.

Debates work on the basis that people use their brains and provide a contrary. YOu fail miserably at providing anything except ranting about proof, which really hurts you more then it does me.

Debates shouldn't be about asking for proof. It should really be about presenting logical basis for one's statements, which I do. You do not. Speaking on things like an uneducated agnostic is quite stupid and redundant. If one is take that route, one needs to do their homework and present it. I was strong agnostic for 23 years, nobody can tell me anything about truth and logic.

 

[der Astronom]

Everybody runs on faith. Where is the proof of your godless reality? There is none, so you have defeated yourself at your own argument.

No, we do not. If you believe that the only basis people have for presenting an argument is faith, then you probably shouldn't be debating. Debate involves discussing the reasons and explanations for an argument, and if you believe all arguments are founded on faith, then you're done.

Debates shouldn't be about asking for proof. It should really be about presenting logical basis for one's statements, which I do. You do not. Speaking on things like an uneducated agnostic is quite stupid and redundant. If one is take that route, one needs to do their homework and present it. I was strong agnostic for 23 years, nobody can tell me anything about truth and logic.

Actually, it is perfectly fine for someone to demand proof or evidence for any argument you present. You've been doing nothing but "shut up, that's why" in all these debate threads because you think you can go around presenting your "arguments" to people without backing them up. If you're only interested in presenting ideas without proving them or supporting them with some kind of evidence, then you're not in the interest of debating; you're just in the interest of advertising ideas, no matter how ridiculous they may seem, which is why I'm glad someone made that spam thread.

 

[Tmoo]

ha, a debate within a thread about debating. to answer the OP, it's impossible to debate if either side has an agenda. you have to have be open to the possibility of you being in the wrong, and you can't let your ego get in the way. as can be seen the world over, this is a difficult hurdle, not helped at all by the stakes being so high in politics. were it so easy to approach differing opinions without chagrin and condescending elitism, humanity wouldn't be in the state it's in today.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

No, we do not. If you believe that the only basis people have for presenting an argument is faith, then you probably shouldn't be debating. Debate involves discussing the reasons and explanations for an argument, and if you believe all arguments are founded on faith, then you're done.

On the grand scale, faith most certainly is a key factor in logic. You are atheist on account of lack of evidence, not evidence showing a godless world. The fact is that everything points to the idea, and you are going on faith when you argue against it because nothing shows otherwise.
Such is the irony of 'scientific people' trying to one up theists.

Actually, it is perfectly fine for someone to demand proof or evidence for any argument you present. You've been doing nothing but "shut up, that's why" in all these debate threads because you think you can go around presenting your "arguments" to people without backing them up. If you're only interested in presenting ideas without proving them or supporting them with some kind of evidence, then you're not in the interest of debating; you're just in the interest of advertising ideas, no matter how ridiculous they may seem, which is why I'm glad someone made that spam thread.

It's perfectly fine if the person is lazy, self centered, and bias. When have I ever asked for proof? It's not necessary to anyone with an actual interest in discussing. It's bullshit.
If someone wasn't so rude and was actually sincere, I would maybe consider it, but I don't succumb to that weak crap.

Someone made that spam thread to launch a personal attack. There you go fabricating out your ass something that isn't true.

 

[der Astronom]

Now I know he's been banned, but I thought I'd wrap this up anyways.

On the grand scale, faith most certainly is a key factor in logic. You are atheist on account of lack of evidence, not evidence showing a godless world. The fact is that everything points to the idea, and you are going on faith when you argue against it because nothing shows otherwise.

Look, I am not arguing that everyone has to believe that god exists, only that I have found no convincing argument that god exists. That god does not exist is a default position, in much the same way saying Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Harry Potter and Edward Cullen (heaven forbid) don't exist. Sure, we don't have any evidence that any of them exist, but we don't believe they do anyways because it's the default position that a person takes in lack of evidence. And I don't call that faith because non-existence is not an assertion. You need an assertion in order to have faith about something.
If you have your own personal reasons for believing in a god, fine, we don't care. But if you are going to assert that a god exists in a debate, you will have to explain it, or none of us will be convinced.

Such is the irony of 'scientific people' trying to one up theists.

There is nothing about science that indicates that there was any faith involved. In science, we admit we don't know a lot of things. I don't know if god exists. That may be my own personal opinion regarding the existence of god, and I happen to think it's a rather scientific way of approaching it, but admitting that you don't know (and therefore, don't believe) is hardly faith. Theists asserting that god exists for no good reason would be faith.

It's perfectly fine if the person is lazy, self centered, and bias. When have I ever asked for proof? It's not necessary to anyone with an actual interest in discussing. It's bullshit.

And I don't care if you don't ask for proof; that's got nothing to do with the lack of proof or evidence that you need to back up your claims. Maybe you're not asking us for proof because we've already adequately provided it in our arguments, or you're not that experienced of a debater, and if you had asked us, then we wouldn't complain about providing it; we'd do it. If we didn't talk about the justification behind your argument, what is there to actually discuss in a debate? Anything you have to say about your argument would be pointless if your argument were not valid.

If someone wasn't so rude and was actually sincere, I would maybe consider it, but I don't succumb to that weak crap.

Actually, I think a lot of us feel you were being rude and insincere to us, but I don't think we actually care about that; we wasted our time trying to get somewhere with this debate (and now I see how pointless that was; but that was after fact, and not before). We wanted to have a good discussion, and we don't care if you're in the interest of doing so or not. It would be nice if you did, but I continued posting rebuttals in the hopes that someone else had something to say, or that you would grow up.

Someone made that spam thread to launch a personal attack. There you go fabricating out your ass something that isn't true.

And I happen to believe it was a good suggestion. Now maybe the person who made the thread originally intended it as a bait, but I happen to think that's where the majority of your posts in the debate section belonged: in the spam section. I don't think we actually should have wasted our time in the debate section with your posts, considering you weren't even interested in debating logically and sincerely, and all you had to offer were various arrogant versions of "shut up, that's why".