(January 3, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Astreja Wrote: <zero_wing>Someone set up us the bomb!</zero_wing>

(January 2, 2017 at 11:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I want one on one debates on three separate assertions.

1. If God exists, there is a true religion out there.

2. God exists.

3. If there is a true religion, Islam is it.

Anyone can agree with me to debate any of these three. 

I guarantee you I have not just an argument for each but many concrete 100% conclusive arguments for each.

I will only debate one topic at a time. 


By the way, if 3 is proven, and then 1 is proven, then 2 is proven, then Islam is proven.

Look forward to any challengers!

Not a chance.

You have been here for years presenting the same fallacious arguments.

What makes you think that doing the same thing in the formal debate forum will make a difference.

(January 2, 2017 at 11:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I want one on one debates on three separate assertions.

1. If God exists, there is a true religion out there.

2. God exists.

3. If there is a true religion, Islam is it.

Anyone can agree with me to debate any of these three. 

I guarantee you I have not just an argument for each but many concrete 100% conclusive arguments for each.

I will only debate one topic at a time. 


By the way, if 3 is proven, and then 1 is proven, then 2 is proven, then Islam is proven.

Look forward to any challengers!

I guarantee that you don't have anything even close to concrete, 100% conclusive arguments.  I have heard this claim so many times it's really kind of pathetic at this point.  If it was "100% conclusive" it would be "evidence" not "arguments".  Arguments are the tools of those without evidence.  Arguments are how you trick someone into believing something you don't have the evidence to support.  Arguments are how you change opinions, not how you prove claims.

I'm sure you think that you have super-witty arguments to show everything you believe to be 100% true, but I guarantee you that you have to believe it first AND ONLY THEN are the arguments convincing.  Anyone here can tear apart anything you have with minimal effort, and that is a guaranteed, concrete, 100% conclusive claim which will be backed shortly by the actual evidence of your arguments being soundly refuted.  Not that you'll learn a damned thing.  You'll blame your failure on us.  You've already set up the blame shift by claiming that we don't want there to be conclusive proofs.

But I'll admit, you are at least a little right on that.  I don't want Islam to be true.  I don't want to teach my daughters that they're properties given value only by a man, who it is their duty to submit to in anything he wants.  I don't want to teach them that any given man, regardless how big a piece of shit he is, has more value than them.  I don't want to accept that it's my duty to beat my wife when she steps out of line.  I don't want to believe that it's okay for me to kill people I disagree with.  Islam is the biggest shit-show out there, so no, I don't want it to be true.  Thankfully, it isn't.

(January 2, 2017 at 11:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I want one on one debates on three separate assertions.

1. If God exists, there is a true religion out there.

2. God exists.

3. If there is a true religion, Islam is it.

Anyone can agree with me to debate any of these three. 

I guarantee you I have not just an argument for each but many concrete 100% conclusive arguments for each.

I will only debate one topic at a time. 


By the way, if 3 is proven, and then 1 is proven, then 2 is proven, then Islam is proven.

Look forward to any challengers!

I will not debate anything with you. Your proposal is blatant dishonesty. You can't see this because you wish so hard your god existed. Oh MK, whatever happened to you?

(January 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You have been here for years presenting the same fallacious arguments.

What makes you think that doing the same thing in the formal debate forum will make a difference.

Probably because he thinks it gives his ideas a veneer of respectability, sharing the stage in a serious debate. Sadly, "That would look great on your CV; not so great on mine."

There's also the added benefit that he can say later on that he offered to prove his god to us, but we were too scared to debate him. He's already made those sort of noises. So it's a win-win exercise for him.

It's actually because I don't have time to reply to a bunch of people at the same time. So I would rather limit it to one on one.

Time will tell. Thus spake the prophet.

I'll repeat that this all seems assume that the "true" religion must be one currently being practiced. That is so blatantly wrong that there's not a lot of point proceeding without clearing this up. I don't even know how you can have a formal debate about that.

If point 1 is just saying that a "true" religion is theoretically possible, then fair enough.

(January 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'll repeat that this all seems assume that the "true" religion must be one currently being practiced. That is so blatantly wrong that there's not a lot of point proceeding without clearing this up. I don't even know how you can have a formal debate about that.

If point 1 is just saying that a "true" religion is theoretically possible, then fair enough.

What if the true religion was the big booby religion that was practiced for thousands of years across Europe then died out. you know the one, the one that had the fat arsed clay figures with the massive knockers.

(January 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm)robvalue Wrote: If point 1 is just saying that a "true" religion is theoretically possible, then fair enough.

One would think that a "true" religion would at very least have to confer similar benefits upon all practitioners.  Based on the insanely wide disparity among similarly devout individuals from the same versions of just about every religion ever invented, I'm not holding out much hope for ever finding such a thing.