The Instigator
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imnotacop
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

ATTB, a person who went directly from born-again Christian to agnostic atheism can go to heaven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
imnotacop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 69185
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

Con may make the first argument.


ATTB: Acronym for "According to the bible"

Agnostic atheist- a person who believes that there is no god but does not claim to know it for a fact

Born-again Christian- a Christian who accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior

imnotacop

Con

This resolve assumes the existence of god, heaven, and that we (humans) could possibly comprehend what is needed to gain access to such a heaven.
As con, I argue that we couldn't possibly know.
If a god is omnipotent and outside of the realm of human understanding, it is pretentious to claim knowledge in the decisions of such god. Of course, if god is outside of the realm of human understanding, than we couldn't possibly understand if such god even existed, and, if such god were within human understanding, we'd have to understand that such god exists through human capabilities to make such claim, the entire claim toward there being a god is based in a book written thousands of years ago, we still have no direct link, or even a reliable offhand source to lead to the knowledge of a gods existence. And, heaven being directly linked to god, we, as an extent, could not claim knowledge to it's existence.
Human beings being of mortal understanding could not understand heavenly construct because, by religions own definition, it's outside of the realm of our understanding.
Debate Round No. 1
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

Pro's argument does not concern what the BIBLE says about agnostic atheists going to heaven. The fact that we can't know for sure is irrelevant because I specified "according to the bible."
imnotacop

Con

Firstly, you're pro, you obviously meant me, so, remember that I'm con. Even so, you're right, and, being the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
So, where is it evident that you can get into heaven as an agnostic atheist? You provide no argument for you're side, and I've already made two statements against you. You lack in argumentative substance and hold no real ground for what you're claiming.
As too the bible specifically, it states plainly in Revelation 21:8. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." So even as to the contingency, the book of which should be cited for basis of argument rather than relied on, as any other holy book is as likely to be true, does in fact rebut your claim. If, in fact, my opponent does have the ability to cherry pick a section, it's simply that, deciding what parts fit better your claim while ignoring the rest despite their value. In that, the argument based in reality is far more reliable than that of a book written in times far below us. The bible is, for all we know, no more correct than a Christians tumblr account.
Debate Round No. 2
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

R1: "Firstly, you're pro, you obviously meant me, so, remember that I'm con."

OH. REALLy sorry about the mistake, Con.


R2: "You provide no argument for you're side, and I've already made two statements against you. You lack in argumentative substance and hold no real ground for what you're claiming."

Because your arguments were irrelevant to what the Bible says about an agnostic atheist going to heaven, as we previously agreed.

R3: You used revelation 21:8 as an argument for your position. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death," It says. Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Agnostic atheists believe in the possibility that God may exist, so they have some faith. It also lists "Sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars." However, these are al immoral. Studies show, however, that atheists tend to have better morality than religious people (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). This verse, as a result, only excludes some agnostic atheists. Hell is also a place where the wicked go according to the Bible, so if people have good morality, accepted Jesus, and believe that God maye exist, this implies that they would go to heaven.
imnotacop

Con

Pro plainly lies and twists his way around realities in order to for his conclusion as well as admits his lack of arguments as well, where I'm providing arguments to the point, relevant to the bible or not. In order to claim that the bible doesn't damn atheists to hell, you have to ignore what the bible says,
my opponent claims that atheism is a faith. Atheism is a faith like abstinence is a sex position. Atheist and agnosticism are two different things. According to your own link, atheism is the denial of a god existing, where agnosticism is pertains to knowledge. So, according to your own source, agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions what someone knows (agnosticism) and what someone believes (atheism). Therefor you've defined your agnostic atheist as someone with out faith. There are also multiple definitions of faith in the link you've given. It's strange, not only that you didn't go to the definitions of the faith or lackthereof in question, but you also chose the definition that does not directly concern god when there is such definition there - "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:" That definition is far more appropriate. You are choosing definitions that suite you while the more appropriate doesn't. You have a blatant confirmation bias.
Going on to morality, the bible also has something to say about it. Psalm 14:1 "To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."
It says right in the bible that those who dismiss god are immoral. So, are we going according to the bible, or according to psychologytoday? You spent your entire second round debating the contents of my debate rather than the subject of it. Well, you should practice what you preach.
Atheism "ATTB" is immoral. And, for the sake of this debate, the bible takes the stage, and the bible disagrees with you, I suppose that's why you're not arguing according to the bible.
The difference is, I'm willing to have that argument, I want to have that argument, you're the one pushing me into the box of religion. You can't just put me into the box of religion while giving yourself free reign. That's incredible misconduct, and I feel it should be pointed out.
You have attempted to assure a victory by sneaking your way to a wider, more reality based, range of sources. Arguing purely based in the bible, you can't win, and, if you don't confine me, than the question of the existence of heaven comes to light and you still lose. You try to suppress me in order to assure your victory, and, in that alone, you have displayed such great misconduct, that, I'd argue, you forfeit this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r

Pro

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
GamrDeb8rBbrH8rimnotacopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture