A DEBATE forum… how shocking that on this GLOBAL forum (all theists and deities) there is actual logical arguments. No one’s on the “defensive” unless YOU are because you “believe” by default things that have no reasonable evidence.
It’s OK to be an agnostic-theist 
Especially when one considers they are ALL agnostic theists. 
Well it’s your point, so that suggests you have communicated it poorly.
This is straw man fallacy, since despite being an atheist I do not nor have I ever claimed “no deity exists”, theists “by definition” are claiming a deity does exist, it’s not my fault you can’t see the difference. You can’t prove invisible mermaids don’t exist, does this mean you believe they do?
False dichotomy fallacy, since one side is making a claim, and the other is not.
Straw man fallacy, since I have made no such lecture.
I’m sorry if your early experience was traumatic, but nonetheless logic and critical thinking don’t need to defer humility to unevidenced blind faith, or unevidenced superstition. I am unconvinced, by all means let those who are convince me, I mean it’s not as if I sought you out for this discourse, now is it?
Why do you keep implying that arguing is somehow wrong? Arguing beliefs and claims is a very efficacious way of examining their validity. Only the closed minded oppose argument in my experience.
So you sought out an atheists debate forum, to reel off unevidenced claims, but have no interest in actual debate, and are sulking because people don’t agree with your unevidenced and irrational claims?
You see how hilariously ironic that is right? Maybe not, anyway you are free to leave if that is your wish, but you won’t learn anything by running away from debate with those who disagree with your beliefs.
(I did a no-no and wrote in the other thread. This is a copy and paste job.) Obviously a few of the regulars have beaten me to the punch, and it appears I am just being repetitive. Monkey see, monkey do.
The argument from hard solecism. It makes no difference at all. We can not prove the brain is not in a vat and the world illusion. We can not prove the world did not pop into existence ten minutes ago with all memories intact. SO WHAT. This is the world we live in. We have no choice. I don’t believe for an instant you run about denying the laws of reality. You step out a windown and you are going to fall until you hit the ground. THAT IS A FACT. You do not get to pretend that your delusion of a god is on par with my facts of existence because we can’t know anything 100%. That is both ignorant and dishonest.
Do you even know what a law is? Do you know why they are not universal? Do you really think you scored a point here? Laws are “DESCRIPTIVE” not 'PRESCRIPTIVE." Scientists build models not laws. Laws are observations and nothing more. When new evidence comes to light, our ‘LAWS’ are altered to fit the new evidence. That is how science works. Laws are not, nor have they ever been, intended to be universal. You are chasing a red herring. Your argument simply shows your ignorance.
You are incorrect again. If I assert there is a dragon living in my backyard, are you going to accept the claim without evidence? Are you that slow? The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You would be completely justified asking for evidence of the claim and then evaluating that evidence. I am completely justified in questioning magical, spiritual, woo woo that has no evidence in the world in which we reside.
I can’t even imagine the ignorance of this comment. Half the world is starving and, you are sitting there plunking away on a thousand dollar computer. You probably had meat for dinner. Can you spell ‘Hypocrite.’ What would make more people happy is for you to give up your posessions and live like most people in the world. Follow Jesus and give everything to the poor and stop being the hypocrite you are.
One of us does not have to "PROVE’ (You actually mean demonstrate.) anything. One of us is asking questions and the other making claims. Claims carry a burden of proof.
The point of the debate, which you completely miss, is to drag you kicking and screaming into the light of rational thought and reason. Perhaps you will get it someday. In the mean time, enjoy the darkness.
The only one arguing they know things for certain is YOU. You have asserted we can not know anything 100%. Now, we all know a lot of shit. How do you demonstrate there is not one single fact, someplace, that can not be known 100%. Do you know that fact 100% You seem to know that I can not know anything for sure. How sure are you about that? You could be wrong.
How can we find out? We can stop pretending that we can’t know anything and therefore nothing is worth knowing, and we can examine the matter. We can actually look into it and do experiments and seek independent validation. (We can apply the scientific method. The best possible tool we have for understanding the world around us.) The tool that created the computer you are using. The computer you are going to give to some poor family because it will make as many humans happy as possible.
I guess he’s saying that because he came to preach and not have his “say” refuted. Unfortunately that’s not how the real world works I’m afraid.
I’m absolutely certain that A ≠ ¬A.
Do I win a prize?
As others have stated, atheism is simply the position of being unconvinced of the evidence about one particular claim, that regarding god(s).
But I’d wager most atheists are very logical thinkers and likely assign probabilities to claims…
For example, if you tell me you have a wallet in your pocket, I’d think, that’s a reasonable claim, most people do, we can assign a probability of being very likely… this would lower the weight of evidence required to meet a burden of proof.
If you said you own a bright pink Porsche, I’d say this is quite a claim and will require some evidence… a picture?! Something…
But if you come to us and say, “i’ve got a magical bearded sky wizard who created everything, but I cant prove any of it!”… I’d say that the prior probability is that you’re talking out of your arse and will have to come up with a very impressive level of evidence to even come remotely close to backing the claim.
And this is why we argue! Because theists feel that they have some absolute right to dictate other people’s lives and interfere with how everyone lives.
Theism has seeped like venom into politics, education etc… if you kept it to yourselves, within your own homes they’d be no issue.
I want to point out that just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that much of what we do know isn’t true, or factual.
As an example, we know that the Pythagorean Theorem is factual (for right angle triangles drawn on a flat surface), even if there are triangles in the Andromeda Galaxy that we haven’t measured.
I realize that someone can claim that there is a difference between a mathematical proof and an idea established by a reasoned argument . . . and this is actually a legitimate objection, as Aristotle argued that men have more teeth than women, and that heavier weights fall faster than lighter weights.
His arguments were brilliant, but wrong . . . as checking his conclusions against what is observed in the real world was beneath him, since manual labor is only fit for slaves.
As I consider myself to be a practical person (I am–after all–an ex-paramedic), I accept that rational argument is an appropriate and legitimate way to approach the problems of the real world.
This is because argument is central to science, and science has given us a longer lifespan and modern medicine (among many other benefits).
So, the fact that argument works is what makes me believe in it . . . although I accept that the process is not perfect (as my example with Aristotle demonstrates).
Q.E.D.
Come on… How would anyone ever know Aristotle was wrong if someone did not argue against his silly ideas?
LOL . . . but we figured out he was wrong by experimenting, not by arguing . . . unless we want to consider a point made by Gallileo: If we attach a heavy weight and a light weight by a long, thin cord and drop it . . . does fall faster than either weight alone because the combination weighs more than either weight? Or does the heavier weight fall slower than expected because of the drag represented by the lighter weight falling slower than the faster weight?
So, Gallileo defeated Aristotle on his own turf.
No wonder the Church hated him so much.
Atheists are not interested in proving there is no god. The person missing the point is YOU* Are you completely ignorant of how reason and logic work. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. Why would anyone waste their time attempting to demonstrate something they do not believe exists. I have not disproved the existence of unicorns, dragons, or blue universe creating bunnies. What insane reason would I have for demonstrating half a million gods are all false or nonexistent. But in fact, that is exactly what you are doing. You think you have found that which is unknowable and untestable. You think you have disproved every god in history but for the one true god. Can you demonstrate how you disproved all these gods and inserted your own belief system in their place? Have you ever heard of the 'Null Hypothesis?" No relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed until that relationship can be demonstrated. God is not related to existence without evidence supporting the claim. Lacking evidence, there is no reason to believe the claim.
Perhaps you are confused about the two possible claims.
Claim one: God Exists
Claim two: God does not exist.
Both claims require evidence in support.
Both claims are subject to the null hypothesis. Neither claim can be believed without evidence.
There is no reason to believe either claim without evidence. Now, you said I can not prove god does not exist. Which god are you talking about. Provide a description of this god thing you speak of and his or her attributes. We will see if you can accurately describe this thing you think does or does not exist, and then we can go from there. Your lack of an explanation will be taken as a concession. You really don’t know what god does or does not exist, and you are simply attempting to get a troll’s reaction out of the members of the site.
So, what is this god thing you speak of? If you can’t describe it, obviously there is no reason to assume it exists.
EDIT: for clarification
Look at it this way. If I tell you the number of stars in the sky is even, do you believe me? If you say ‘No,’ does that mean you think the number is odd? No, it does not. It means you are not convinced that I know the number of stars to be even. It means you are sitting on the ‘null hypothesis.’ I have not yet met my burden of proof. In the same way, If I tell you that I do not believe in your idea of god. I am not saying your god thing does not exist. (Before I could ever make that claim you would have to define this god thing you believe in, and then we could begin testing it.) If it is not testable, you are professing to know the unknowable. If you can not test it in some way, how is it any different from a magical monkey that grants wishes? You are asserting that I can not know the number of stars in the sky are odd. So what? Neither can you. Not only that, but I know for a fact you do not know for a fact, that the number of stars in the sky is even. If you had evidence you would have presented it and not wasted our time on this stupidity. You cannot possibly know the number of stars in the sky. You cannot possibly know the existence of God or gods in any real or tangible way that provides evidence. If you could, you would be the most famous person in the world. If anyone ever actually discovers a god, the whole world will be amazed.
We can prove God does not exist, as much as you can prove Santa Claus does not exist… (spoiler alert… sorry boys and girls).
Listen up, everybody! I have something I’d like to get off my chest in regards to our dearly departed NY member. Just so you all know, I think it’s a damn shame that nobody here agreed with him so as to not hurt his feelings, thus causing him to vacate the premises prematurely. However, in honor of his memory and the wealth of knowledge he bestowed upon us, I really don’t feel like arguing about it.
(Edit for non-conflicting reasons.)
Why argue about anything…
Our finite minds can’t really prove anything…
Each of us should make decisions based upon what makes subjective sense…
Do what feels best…
I suggest it’s likely that @NY_G_PA2 has moved to southern California, sublet a strip mall space, and now markets himself as ‘Guru PAZ.’
He is currently making a living from silver spooned twentysomethings who are full of internet-induced life trauma and are certain that life should be pain and conflict free, which is attained through reaching enlightened nirvana.
Any similar activity must be better than arguing with stupid arguers with no humility.
Why y’all gotta make this way more complicated than necessary? It’s all very simple. The ONLY thing that needs to be done is for everybody to agree with everything that anybody says about anything. Just follow that ONE simple rule, and all this traumatic argumentative stuff will instantly disappear forever. And if you disagree with this, you are part of the problem. I refuse to debate this with anybody.
Oh, and another thing…
For the record, I want it to be known I do not disagree to not agree with the opinions of others that disagree to agree with my opinions. To do so would likely result in a pointless argument merely for the sake of being argumentative, and I refuse to be held responsible for instigating such useless arguments. Therefore, just accept the fact that I KNOW I am always right, whether or not I am wrong, and we should all get along in perfect harmony.
(Edit for conformity.)
Woooaaahhh! You’re kinda stepping on my avatar now. You don’t see me wielding an axe in the company of cowardly lions and scarecrows do you?
Have a heart, well so to speak… 
Ah, so you agree that we should not argue about how I am always right? Excellent. Glad we got that settled. And, for what it’s worth, I believe you are absolutely correct in agreeing with and accepting that conclusion. I knew I could count on you to understand.