Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism

Round 1

1 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Atheist is someone who by definition lacks belief in God.

So atheist can never believe in God. Person who believes in God is theist, not atheist.

My opponent defends a position that at some point in future, an atheist will believe in God. But that is logically impossible. A theist will believe in God. Atheist wont, ever.

Lets break up topic by definitions:

A person who lacks belief in God will never believe in God.

the moment person starts believing in God, person is no longer a person who lacks belief in God.

SergeantLynch

Con #2

Okay.

So let's talk definition, so lets talk definition of Pro's central tenet here, which is "NEVER", as presented.

Never is pretty clearly and uncomplicatedly defined as "not ever".

NEVER means NEVER.

Cannot my opponent think of an instance when an atheist might be persuaded to alter their outlook on the subject of creation and existence.

Two examples:

A gert great spaceship rocks up emblazoned with the letters GOD, piloted by angels, with a bearded, ethereal haloed dude waving through the porthole. Frustrated at what he finds, he proceeds to smite down Trump and Putin and all tyrants.
Atheist dies and is transported to a heavenly afterlife, whereupon they are greeted by a host of Angels and and a bearded, ethereal haloed dude.

I'd be down on my knees in a jiffy.

Round 2

2 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #3

Then he wouldnt be atheist anymore, he would be theist. The topic is about atheist believing in God, which is impossible.

SergeantLynch

Con #4

The proposition states that an atheist will "NEVER be convinced".

It does not state that and atheist cannot ever be a theist.

melcharaz

#14

Trying to trap someone in a debate cause people are tired of your nonsense.

Getting pretty low there.

melcharaz

#13

"The idea that there is "no such thing as an atheist" suggests that everyone ultimately believes in something greater, even if they identify as atheists. This perspective argues that all people have a natural impulse to worship or find meaning in something, whether it's a deity or an idea."

If this holds to be true even to the smallest application (regardless of which God, but even in application to Iehovah)
Then there is no true athiest.

Asserting athiestism in this debate is a hasty generalization

melcharaz

#12

In which case there is no true athiest as all believe in themselves or another to have power similar to God by their nature, intellect and capability for morality as God is identified for.

melcharaz

#11

No true scotsman. A person claiming to be an athiest can still believe in a God, but not be an athiest.

ChatKnight

#10

--> @PhilosophicalJay

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the following: You used to just assume Christianity was wrong without really thinking about it. Then you realized you were being unfair. You changed how you think about what's true and false, and now you believe in multiple gods instead of no gods or just one god. Your own experiences since then have made you more sure about this.

PhilosophicalJay

--> @ChatKnight

I had been more apatheistic for quite some time and ultimately decided to reevaluate a lot of my core beliefs. I felt like a lot of my views came about primarily from anti-Christian bias rather than true evaluation of the evidence (one example is that I was a Jesus mythicist just out of hearing that there existed historians that supported the position and then looked for evidence to support it). I felt like I had finally reached a point I could reevaluate my beliefs.

I ultimately changed my epistemological standards to be less hyper-skeptical, as I realized I used different standards when analyzing religious and religious adjacent claims than when analyzing everything else, became a moral realist after reading into Neo Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, etc.

Eventually it came time to reevaluate my religious views. Ultimately, a combination of Swinburne's Argument from Religious Experience (via Reid's Principle of Credulity) and Greer's Argument for Polytheism from the Diversity of Religious Experience made me take polytheism seriously. Ultimately, it became a cumulative case to me that if theism is true that it is probably polytheism. Before I knew it, I was convinced that both atheism and polytheism are rational positions one can take depending mostly on epistemological standards and I just happened to fall moreso on the polytheistic side. My personal experiences since then have only solidified it for me.

ChatKnight

--> @PhilosophicalJay

I'm curious...What changed your mind?

PhilosophicalJay

Ex-atheist here. In fact, on DDO I did numerous debates and participated in the forums quite a bit as an atheist (SNP1). Anyone can use me as an example of an atheist that became a theist, or they can use the list provided by ChatKnight.

SatanLucy

--> @pierree

theism just means belief in God or Gods.

pierree

--> @SatanLucy

ayo?

Mal

Will the real atheists step forward.

pierree

is buddhism, induism and pagan religion considered as theistic?

FLRW

--> @SatanLucy

Tru-dat!

ChatKnight

--> @SatanLucy

Famous atheists who became theists:
- Joy Davidman
- Tamsin Greig
- Nicky Gumbel
- Peter Hitchens
- C. E. M. Joad
- C. S. Lewis
- Alister McGrath
- Enoch Powell
- Michael Reiss
- Dame Cicely Saunders
- Fay Weldon
- Mortimer J. Adler
- G. E. M. Anscombe
- Benedict Ashley
- Maurice Baring
- Mark Bauerlein
- Léon Bloy
- Paul Bourget
- Alexis Carrel
- Salvador Dalí
- Alfred Döblin
- Avery Dulles
- Alice Thomas Ellis
- Edward Feser
- André Frossard
- Maggie Gallagher
- Eugene D. Genovese
- Bill Hayden
- Mary Karr
- Ignace Lepp
- Leah Libresco
- Arnold Lunn
- Gabriel Marcel
- Claude McKay
- Vittorio Messori
- Czesław Miłosz
- Malcolm Muggeridge
- Bernard Nathanson
- Fulton Oursler
- Giovanni Papini
- Joseph Pearce
- Charles Péguy
- Sally Read
- E. F. Schumacher
- Peter Steele
- Edith Stein
- John Lawson Stoddard
- R. J. Stove
- Allen Tate
- Victor Turner
- Sigrid Undset
- J. D. Vance
- Evelyn Waugh
- John C. Wright
- Emir Kusturica
- Seraphim Rose
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
- Steve Beren
- Kirk Cameron
- Francis Collins
- Bo Giertz
- Simon Greenleaf
- Keir Hardie
- Paul Jones
- Kang Kek Iew (Comrade Duch)
- Akiane Kramarik
- Jonny Lang
- Chai Ling
- Josh McDowell
- John Warwick Montgomery
- William J. Murray
- Marvin Olasky
- George R. Price
- Mira Sorvino
- Lee Strobel
- Lacey Sturm
- J. Warner Wallace
- David Wood
- Whittaker Chambers
- Gerald Priestland
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali
- Peter Baltes
- Anders Borg
- Julie Burchill
- Nicole Cliffe
- Bruce Cockburn
- Karl Dallas
- Larry Darby
- Robert Davidson
- Terry A. Davis
- Andrew Klavan
- Nina Karin Monsen
- Rosalind Picard
- Joseph Franklin Rutherford
- Allan Sandage
- Larry Sanger
- Fred Severud
- Rodney Stark
- František Vyskočil
- A. N. Wilson
- Ryan Trahan
- John Dobson
- Sita Ram Goel
- Eben Alexander
- Plutarco Elías Calles
- Gabrielle Carey
- Antony Flew
- Moses Hess
- Jordan Peterson
- William Luther Pierce
- Anne Rice
- J. Neil Schulman
- Dave Sim
- Ted Turner
- Mark Zuckerberg

melcharaz

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

No descriptions.
Assuming title ans instigator opening statement is the foundation.

"Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism"

Automatically there is a problem.
Assuming the contendor came in Good faith, they debated under the assumption of convincing the athiest of the existence of gods.

However instigator in opening statement refutes their own title and says

"So atheist can never believe in God."

And

"My opponent defends a position that at some point in future, an atheist will believe in God."

But belief and convince are 2 different objectives. I can convince someone (maybe) but then they are no longer categortically defined as the "non believing" or athiest as is shown in this debate.

I rule contender wins because instigator approached debate in bad faith, talking about conviencing in the title, then shifting the goal post of what an athiest is.

Disappointing.

Round 1

Round 2

New comment