A challenge!

[chimp3]

I am sure that Mystic Knight will be a good sport and admit he was wrong if he loses the debate. 

I would not debate him though. I have read the Koran twice and am thoroughly unconvinced. If the angel Jibreel could not convince me I doubt Mystic Knight could.

[ignoramus]

In his mind he won't and can't lose... His scripture does not allow for a fail state.

no-one's does really? CL? What do you reckon?

[purplepurpose]

In his mind he won't and can't lose... His scripture does not allow for a fail state.

no-one's does really?  CL? What do you reckon?

I guess, majority of believers take such heavy burden by trying to become so selfless in the process of their religious practice, that the instructions in the "holy books" to "recruit" other people comes as some sort of relief, where they get to "share" ideology they like so much or feel joy for a change while they spread what they like.

The strong confidence might come from the attempt to take position of "little angel/martyr", who wishes to live an ideal life with the guidance of Gods prefect but bitter will, so the whole ideology can be compressed in to this "I FEEL/BELIEF that I'm moving in to direction of prefect/selfless life, so, what exactly my "holy book" says, doesn't matter(every strand of religion interprets verses in holy books as they wish), its one of the best things there is in terms of living extraordinary moral life. So, I obey this righteous feeling and you should do the same, because I feel, that we will be punished for not doing enough good deeds".

[brewer]

From a psychological perspective, it makes me  laugh how they use the term one true god.
This is to differentiate their god from everyone else's false god.

MK, you don't need to convince us of anything, we're not shopping around for a god.
You need to convince all the other religious people who believe in the wrong god.

Once the world starts believing in only one god, then we'll tell you why that one is bullshit too.
Baby steps my friend.

Don't kid yourself. MK's actions are because he is unsure, not completely convinced himself. If he completely believed there would be no need for a debate. He would know he was right and not have to argue that he was right. 

MK, you're not right.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Because people mock and also spray shower a bunch of things, with many points being a topic in itself. I rather focus on one person.

Yeh but who's stopping you from focusing on a single person in a public thread?

Talking in a debate format allows them to escape directly addressing queries or counter arguments. They are free to proselytise while giving the appearance (if only to themselves) of engaging in a discussion.
I'd secure a cross examination segment before agreeing to anything

[brewer]

[Asmodee]

Yeh but who's stopping you from focusing on a single person in a public thread?

Talking in a debate format allows them to escape directly addressing queries or counter arguments. They are free to proselytise while giving the appearance (if only to themselves) of engaging in a discussion.
I'd secure a cross examination segment before agreeing to anything

It also allows him to set the rules.  Currently there's a "5 post" rule.  This type of rule is usually employed when the arguer intends to meter their release of information, the final post being "Gotcha!  Debate over!"  Maybe I'm being cynical, though.  The person debating him would have the last post unless the format is tweaked somehow.

[Faith No More]

Given that your posts about god are mostly meaningless gibberish that you refuse to ever admit are flawed, I'd rather masturbate with sandpaper.

I am, however, curious as to which version of Islam you will be arguing is true. If you can't even get all Muslims to agree on what Islam is, what makes you think that you can convince non-believers that it's true? Shouldn't you start by trying to create one unified version of Islam before trying to prove it true? Bonus points if you can accomplish that without having to behead the other Muslims that disagree with you.

[Mystic]

I find in telling people already know there are no proofs for God before proofs are presented. *smiles*

There were valid arguments presented before, what was disputed was not the validity of the argument, but if all the premises were sound. So I have new angles and arguments to prove all the premises are sound.

Why do you in haste conclude there is no evidence or proof?

[Astonished]

I find in telling people already know there are no proofs for God before proofs are presented. *smiles*

There were valid arguments presented before, what was disputed was not the validity of the argument, but if all the premises were sound. So I have new angles and arguments to prove all the premises are sound.

Why do you in haste conclude there is no evidence or proof?

Here's the problem. Skeptical thinkers have no choice in what they believe. If the evidence points one way, our beliefs form or re-shape themselves to fit with the evidence. If you actually had evidence, then no matter how horrible its implications would be, we wouldn't be able to deny it. The fact that we're still in the same position we're in is proof that the 'evidence' you present is either not, in fact, any evidence of any kind at all, or is evidence of something for which your conclusions are incorrect. It's quite simple, really. Since your god is a logical impossibility, this seems to rule out the need for debate entirely, or so one who thinks rationally would conclude. Maybe you should try that once in your life. A god who forbids that is a demon in disguise, metaphorically speaking of course.