In regards to my vote. I wish to say that personally I am of the position that theism is the most rational position to take on the existence of God. I am a staunch Muslim. So as far as the debate topic is concerned I would be on Pro's side. The reason I voted the way I did is because I truly believe within the confines of this debate Con made the better argument.
I did not mention this in my vote text as I felt it wasn't relevant, so I decided to instead make the comment about it here.
"Atheism also is not ultimately the default position on the existence of God. It is not a neutral position. It takes one side while theism takes another. Agnosticism takes the neutral ground as it takes neither side ."
Feels a bit off seeing Mall use my argument as one of his examples of "Here are arguments by atheists that don't work", but maybe a different person used it against Mall as well, someone who is an atheist.
I beg your pardon. But your usual stance, and the way the rules in the description is written, is making me think you meant to make the topic title "You should question a God who gives kids cancer". Sorry if I am wrong.
Not that relevant to the argument. But I can't believe that "how can I look at you as reliable after being wrong just once?" and "once is too many already." are legitimately sentences written unironically in an argument. This is normally the kind of thing you expect to see in a straw man.
I am surprised by this invitation, but gladly so. I was under the impression that our previous encounter was unpleasant to you.
I would like to say first that I am a Muslim, so while I am perfectly willing to adopt the mantle of atheism (to the best of my abilities) to be your opponent. I wished to convey this first in case you personally wished to debate an actual atheist on this topic. Otherwise if my being religious is not an issue to you then we are all good in this regard.
Additionally, I wanted to ask about an elaboration regarding the atheists framed in the topic title. "Atheists that believe no God exists".
Are we talking about Atheists in general, any that would fit under the broader umbrella term?
Are we talking about the Gnostic atheist? An atheist that actively proclaims through evidence, reasoning, or whatever other means/motives that "God does not exist" is an actively true statement. ("I know that aliens do not exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic strong atheist? An atheist that dismisses claims of God's existence by actively proclaiming that "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is an actively true statement. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because I know that we'll never have enough information to conclude that aliens exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic weak atheist? An atheist that personally dismisses claims of God's existence. Not actively proclaiming "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is a true statement. But coming to their own current dismissive conclusion because they are not personally aware of the evidence (or sufficient reasoning) that God exists. If such evidence and/or reasoning does indeed exist. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because at present I am unaware of sufficient information of their existence, if such information exists")
Or are we talking about a specific brand of Atheist not described (or only partially described) by my previous examples?
Additionally it saddens me that part 1 had no votes at all. I would've preferred losing to that honestly, as there would've at least been potential insight from others who are not you or me.
Putting this separately here since its not part of the debate.
The atmosphere and feel of this debate feels unprogressive, unconstructive, and overall unhelpful.
If this is, even just in part, at my fault. Then I hope that God forgives me for my misconduct and/or my intellectual shortcomings and aids me in growing wiser. At least wise enough to avoid committing whatever follies I might've committed in this debate. And personally apologize to both Mall and the readers for it if that is the case.
If this is, even just in part, at your fault Mall. Then I hope that God can help you in attaining better humility.
Whoever's fault it is, I feel this has failed to be informative or pleasant, that said, I still wish to thank you for accepting to extend this to part 2 when you could've refused.
Not part of the debate so I'll post it here instead, I apologize if you found my posting a link despite what you said disrespectful. I meant no disrespect by it. I simply disagree and personally believe that reducing the inconvenience on our readers is more respectful to them. Even if putting the link comes under the potential risk of them being relatively less interested as a result of not putting in the effort to do the search.
And I don't really think so. Even had I posted it, I still was largely unprepared for most of your questions. I doubt this would've changed the outcome much.
Damn, I ran out of time just a minute short. Oh well, I wasn't proud of my performance here anyway, I don't mind forfeiting this, I just feel bad about having potentially wasted your time.
I managed to copy/paste my argument, so if you're still curious to read it I could private message it to you if you wish.
Hey, before it escapes my mind I wanted to ask. Would you be up for making a part 2 continuation of this topic? I was sincere about my offer to lengthen this debate if possible.
Phew, made it in time. My argument still could've benefitted from polishing as I think I repeated myself in it a few times, something I am not proud of.
What I am also not proud of is because I barely finished my counter-argument big picture presentation in a hurry, the questions section is lacking. I am glad I asked a ton of questions in the first three rounds. But I still feel bad about failing to do so this time.
I feel bad that my first argument is lacking. I woke up and there were a few hours left and I was tired and I hastily put this together. I still take responsibility for how it turned out as I should've started earlier, hopefully my follow-up arguments look more complete and dignified.
I just wanted to comment real quick here that I am indeed a Muslim. Born and raised in Egypt. So I do hope that this satisfies OP's wishes to debate one in this topic.
Ok I was not prepared for this. I don't know if my opponent is forfeiting the debate or if he simply ran out of time for this round.
I know its ok for me to use this round to further my arguments but I dunno, I kinda feel like skipping it would be proper, does anyone who sees this have any comments?
"By the way I want to insert this here so I don't forget. I appreciate the opposing effort. I have interacted with individuals that will not treat these exchanges seriously and carefully at all. I would like to request what topics of interest the opposing side wishes to engage in, let me know."
I am happy to hear this, I take it as a compliment, and to answer your question. I dunno, mostly philosophical, economic and/or religious topics if I had to choose? But I am willing to engage in other things too.
Hey, I noticed you weren't too pleased with getting a newcomer the last time you attempted this topic. So I just wanted to comment that I promise not to forfeit on this debate. I do not guarantee that this interaction will be fulfilling to you but I'll at least try to make it so.
In regards to my vote. I wish to say that personally I am of the position that theism is the most rational position to take on the existence of God. I am a staunch Muslim. So as far as the debate topic is concerned I would be on Pro's side. The reason I voted the way I did is because I truly believe within the confines of this debate Con made the better argument.
I did not mention this in my vote text as I felt it wasn't relevant, so I decided to instead make the comment about it here.
"Atheism also is not ultimately the default position on the existence of God. It is not a neutral position. It takes one side while theism takes another. Agnosticism takes the neutral ground as it takes neither side ."
Feels a bit off seeing Mall use my argument as one of his examples of "Here are arguments by atheists that don't work", but maybe a different person used it against Mall as well, someone who is an atheist.
I beg your pardon. But your usual stance, and the way the rules in the description is written, is making me think you meant to make the topic title "You should question a God who gives kids cancer". Sorry if I am wrong.
Not that relevant to the argument. But I can't believe that "how can I look at you as reliable after being wrong just once?" and "once is too many already." are legitimately sentences written unironically in an argument. This is normally the kind of thing you expect to see in a straw man.
I am surprised by this invitation, but gladly so. I was under the impression that our previous encounter was unpleasant to you.
I would like to say first that I am a Muslim, so while I am perfectly willing to adopt the mantle of atheism (to the best of my abilities) to be your opponent. I wished to convey this first in case you personally wished to debate an actual atheist on this topic. Otherwise if my being religious is not an issue to you then we are all good in this regard.
Additionally, I wanted to ask about an elaboration regarding the atheists framed in the topic title. "Atheists that believe no God exists".
Are we talking about Atheists in general, any that would fit under the broader umbrella term?
Are we talking about the Gnostic atheist? An atheist that actively proclaims through evidence, reasoning, or whatever other means/motives that "God does not exist" is an actively true statement. ("I know that aliens do not exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic strong atheist? An atheist that dismisses claims of God's existence by actively proclaiming that "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is an actively true statement. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because I know that we'll never have enough information to conclude that aliens exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic weak atheist? An atheist that personally dismisses claims of God's existence. Not actively proclaiming "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is a true statement. But coming to their own current dismissive conclusion because they are not personally aware of the evidence (or sufficient reasoning) that God exists. If such evidence and/or reasoning does indeed exist. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because at present I am unaware of sufficient information of their existence, if such information exists")
Or are we talking about a specific brand of Atheist not described (or only partially described) by my previous examples?
Additionally it saddens me that part 1 had no votes at all. I would've preferred losing to that honestly, as there would've at least been potential insight from others who are not you or me.
Putting this separately here since its not part of the debate.
The atmosphere and feel of this debate feels unprogressive, unconstructive, and overall unhelpful.
If this is, even just in part, at my fault. Then I hope that God forgives me for my misconduct and/or my intellectual shortcomings and aids me in growing wiser. At least wise enough to avoid committing whatever follies I might've committed in this debate. And personally apologize to both Mall and the readers for it if that is the case.
If this is, even just in part, at your fault Mall. Then I hope that God can help you in attaining better humility.
Whoever's fault it is, I feel this has failed to be informative or pleasant, that said, I still wish to thank you for accepting to extend this to part 2 when you could've refused.
Not part of the debate so I'll post it here instead, I apologize if you found my posting a link despite what you said disrespectful. I meant no disrespect by it. I simply disagree and personally believe that reducing the inconvenience on our readers is more respectful to them. Even if putting the link comes under the potential risk of them being relatively less interested as a result of not putting in the effort to do the search.
At the start of your first argument, give a link to the first debate so viewers can easily find it.
Also sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your comment until now
No need to apologize, shit happens. In fact some stuff came up recently that now I am dealing with.
No need to apologize, here it is.
https://justpaste.it/cumjj
And I don't really think so. Even had I posted it, I still was largely unprepared for most of your questions. I doubt this would've changed the outcome much.
Damn, I ran out of time just a minute short. Oh well, I wasn't proud of my performance here anyway, I don't mind forfeiting this, I just feel bad about having potentially wasted your time.
I managed to copy/paste my argument, so if you're still curious to read it I could private message it to you if you wish.
Hey, before it escapes my mind I wanted to ask. Would you be up for making a part 2 continuation of this topic? I was sincere about my offer to lengthen this debate if possible.
Phew, made it in time. My argument still could've benefitted from polishing as I think I repeated myself in it a few times, something I am not proud of.
What I am also not proud of is because I barely finished my counter-argument big picture presentation in a hurry, the questions section is lacking. I am glad I asked a ton of questions in the first three rounds. But I still feel bad about failing to do so this time.
I feel bad that my first argument is lacking. I woke up and there were a few hours left and I was tired and I hastily put this together. I still take responsibility for how it turned out as I should've started earlier, hopefully my follow-up arguments look more complete and dignified.
I just wanted to comment real quick here that I am indeed a Muslim. Born and raised in Egypt. So I do hope that this satisfies OP's wishes to debate one in this topic.
Well this is embarrassing, I said I'd group some of the responses to reduce clutter but I didn't do that.
Ok I was not prepared for this. I don't know if my opponent is forfeiting the debate or if he simply ran out of time for this round.
I know its ok for me to use this round to further my arguments but I dunno, I kinda feel like skipping it would be proper, does anyone who sees this have any comments?
"By the way I want to insert this here so I don't forget. I appreciate the opposing effort. I have interacted with individuals that will not treat these exchanges seriously and carefully at all. I would like to request what topics of interest the opposing side wishes to engage in, let me know."
I am happy to hear this, I take it as a compliment, and to answer your question. I dunno, mostly philosophical, economic and/or religious topics if I had to choose? But I am willing to engage in other things too.
Thank you Casey, I appreciate it.
Hey, I noticed you weren't too pleased with getting a newcomer the last time you attempted this topic. So I just wanted to comment that I promise not to forfeit on this debate. I do not guarantee that this interaction will be fulfilling to you but I'll at least try to make it so.
Hey, sorry for taking until the last few minutes to submit my argument. I didn't intend to procrastinate on it this much.