Thread: Should atheists pull their punches in a debate with theists to spare them losing their faith?

I've stated my point on this and don't find it to be self-contradictory, and I feel that what I said was clear enough that it doesn't require revision

Not when you make it 2 times, one after reading my post. I'll trust that you weren't doing it on purpose due lack of knowledge, but it's not like I twisted the wording, especially after you mention organized religion. Also, the intention is never to make someone to look bad, always a funny way to engage in discussion. Since I'm editing this post, you'll see the "joke" directed towards me in a few lines (I laughed ^^).

This I will outright deny, and assert that you are now contradicting yourself. This is the quote of what you posted word for word:

I've read this 5 times, thinking how in earth could it be possible for you to say I was contradicting myself. Then my late english skills (or lack of), kicked in and I realized the word was "bottle", and I've read it this whole time as "bottom". I was acting under the impression that you were stating that just because I couldn't see the "bottom" of the bottle, I couldn't draw conclusions about other person's predictions. I apologize for this, even though it was not intentional, it was my fault indeed. Ah, this made me laugh for a bit xD

This is a cop-out, Zoth. Neither of these examples are "options", they're simply states in which an option has yet to be taken.

Hm, I'm inclined to agree, except for the fact (I'm adding a "new" example here so watch out!) that a person doesn't necessarily need to have a belief/opinion in the future. If the person doesn't see any reason to believe or don't believe, she can always stay in a middle ground. Imagine that the person has all the information the other types of people do, but still doesn't lean either way. That wouldn't make her an atheist or a theist.

Yes, I do think it sounds right, other than the horrible grammar you used.

Don't dare talking about my grammar when you used the "a" sentence, I'll just use the same answer you gave! (just joking ^^)
Anyway, I'll explain you your statement in detailed form:

Using logic:

Believe no God = No belief in God
(Yes) Believe No God = (No) Belief God
(Yes) Belief = (No) Belief
Yes = No

Which is naturally illogical. Believing in something is accepting that claim as true. As an atheist, I don't believe there is a god. But I don't believe that there is a god. If I did, it would mean I believed that the claim of "god doesn't exist" was true. Do you understand it now? It's not just semantics, it's logical assertion that becomes disrupted if you state that "lack of believe in god" and "belief there is no god" is the same.

An atheist is neutral towards it: they don't hold a belief, but they don't actually believe god doesn't exist: we are open minded to actually allow the possibility of some evidence or argument convince us that there is a god.

Now I have to rush and leave work and head home, I'll try to continue where I left tomorrow ^^

By definition, if you hold no positive belief in a god or gods, you are an atheist. There is no requirement that you must claim one does not exist.

[/end_thread]

Alyzarin, do you believe in a soul or some kind of ghost in the machine?

Simple answer...This world in the end matters nothing and I chose to stick with a
God who can fill 6 prophesies of his first coming. There were 300 in the old testament
and to fill even six of them is 1 in 10 to the 45th power odds.

I'll stick with Jesus.

And what, pray tell, might these prophecies be?

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Simple answer...This world in the end matters nothing and I chose to stick with a
God who can fill 6 prophesies of his first coming. There were 300 in the old testament
and to fill even six of them is 1 in 10 to the 45th power odds.

I'll stick with Jesus.

What if you're wrong and you waste the only life you'll ever have?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

What if you're wrong and you waste the only life you'll ever have?

The secret is to live one's life so that it is not wasted, even if I am wrong. I believe in God and live my life the best way I can. If I die, and am proven wrong, I strive to live my life so that I shall not regret living my life the way did. I say this even though I had a personal encounter of God, felt his presence during a near death experience as a child, and thus I am reasonably sure to have all the proof I need. And yet, I realize that what I felt could have been the result of shock and that I could be wrong, though I do not believe I am, but if I am, I shall not regret having believed.

EDIT: And least you say that I then do not really believe in God if I keep open the possibility of being wrong myself. I believe in a God who is omnipotent and omniscient, but I do not believe that human beings are omnipotent nor omniscient, and thus we can be wrong. Can I be wrong in believing? Yes. Do I think I am wrong? No.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I say this even though I had a personal encounter of God, felt his presence during a near death experience as a child, and thus I am reasonably sure to have all the proof I need. And yet, I realize that what I felt could have been the result of shock and that I could be wrong, though I do not believe I am, but if I am, I shall not regret having believed.

Do you ever think that with the understanding that your personal encounter could've been the result of shock, coupled with at least a basic understanding of how the brain and the natural world operates, your belief in a divine creator becomes cheapened? I know you know your belief rests on faith (you've said it in the past). Do you ever stop to consider which explanation may be more likely to be true?