The Instigator
Dale.G
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DeusMortisEst
Con (against)
Winning
76 Points

Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction

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 12 votes the winner is...
DeusMortisEst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,238 times Debate No: 29299
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (12)

 

Dale.G

Pro

Agnostic Atheism is a Contradiction
DeusMortisEst

Con

From the Wikipedia pages on Atheism, Agnosticism, and Agnostic Atheism respectively:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims"are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable."

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

Now show me the contradiction.
Debate Round No. 1
Dale.G

Pro

My main point is to show "agnostic atheism" is a contradiction for to state God does not exist atheism is the only word that I know of in the English language and would be in direct contradiction with being agnostic since an agnostic says he has no evidence either way, thus, he can make no claim either way. He can't be an atheist because he can't state that God does not exist since he admits he doesn't know. The atheist makes the claim God does not exist. These are the traditional meanings of these two words, so the meanings you find on wiki are obviously devised by atheists to convolute and play down the evil nature of being an atheist. Satan is the author of confusion. The fact of the matter, all too often, the person who calls himself an atheist is really a closet agnostic, but the term agnostic doesn't roll off the tongue. It is based on feelings only, not logic.
DeusMortisEst

Con

Your definition of atheism isn't quite right. It isn't the claim that god doesn't exist, it is the rejection of the claim that he does. Even if your definition was correct, I wouldn't see the contradiction. You can claim something doesn't exist and still state that you have no evidence either way.
Debate Round No. 2
Dale.G

Pro

If you want to find another word for the belief that you do not have faith in the existence of any deity, by all means come up with a word, but I for one disallow you to change the traditional meaning of atheism and agnosticism since there are no other words in the English language to claim God does not exist and of not being sure either way. I need to identify what you really are so you can't deceive others and myself. If you don't believe God exists then I call just what you are, an atheist. If you have no faith in any God because you are not sure either way, then I call you an agnostic. If you don't like that, that's your problem! I can't force you to accept reality, but I can reiterate it. If you know God exists but have no faith Him, that's another matter altogether. Satan exists but he has no faith yet he is not agnostic nor atheist. He is just screwed in the head for we all know God exists and therefore, should have faith in Him (Rom. 1.20).
DeusMortisEst

Con

"I for one disallow you to change the traditional meaning of atheism and agnosticism"

Yeah, well you aren't the king of linguistics, and neither is whoever you stole this off.

Obvious plagiarist is obvious...
Debate Round No. 3
Dale.G

Pro

When you do "not have belief in the existence of any deity" this would be agnosticism not atheism, because agnosticism says one doesn't know either way so you are free to say you have no faith in the existence of any deity since you believe there is no evidence either way (though the evidence is there for all of us to see). Whereas atheists clearly claim they do not believe God exists. Common usage of a term can be wrong, for if you remove from the English language the word for claiming God does not exist then there is no word to describe your actual belief, thus you feel you can't be attacked with the truth. Clearly such antics are intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.
DeusMortisEst

Con

No, atheists DON'T clearly claim that. You need to spend some time around some actual atheists, instead of listening to anti-atheist propaganda, and then copy/pasting it onto a debate.

Language is completely dependent on the majority usage of a word. When the majority start using a word to refer to something other than it's original meaning, the meaning changes.

For example: the word 'queer'. In the old days 'queer' simply meant 'strange' or 'uncanny', however, through majority usage, it became synonymous with 'homosexual', and now if you see or hear the word 'queer', most people will assume it means 'homosexual' or at least pertaining to homosexuality in some way.
Debate Round No. 4
Dale.G

Pro

Paddy which one are you Agnostic or Atheist?
DeusMortisEst

Con

I'm an agnostic atheist... You haven't provided a sufficiently good reason for me to accept that the two are mutually exclusive.

I'd like to urge voters to give PRO as few points as possible. He plagiarized 3 of his arguments from this website http://www3.telus.net... (thank you rowsdower for finding it) and he didn't once address a single point I made (due to the fact he was plagiarizing from another source).
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeusMortisEst 4 years ago
DeusMortisEst
I just want to point out that when I debated GarretKadeDupre, he complained that too many people were voting for me simply because they agreed with me, and weren't worried about how well I argued or what points I made.

Can anyone say hypocrite?
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
As it stands, Garret's vote is unimportant even if it was the only one; he voted a draw (3 to 3). That's effectively the same as voting a tie down the line for the purposes of deciding a winner. I'm not gonna harp on him about his decision since it's a moot point.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Aye, "I agree with Dale.G's resolution" is a warrant for voting (zero points) in his favor for "Who did you agree with before/after the debate?" Is it not a sufficient warrant for awarding him most convincing arguments. However, Dale.G is so far enough behind, it won't make a difference.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
@GarretKadeDupre:

Are you really going to give "most convincing argument" to the person who made no argument of their own at all, but rather stole it?
Posted by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
Whatever you know about deities, it has been because other people told you about them or you read what other people wrote about them. Many times those preachers will intimidate you in order to force you to believe in deities. At churches, preachers might even ask you for money.

Centuries back, many religions were invented to subjugate workers and exploit them. When Europeans conquered America, they use religion to beguile and deceive indigenous populations. In the name of Gods, massacres, abuses, and assassinations have been committed throughout centuries of indoctrination and brainwashing.

Maybe Jesus Christ existed, but only as an ordinary citizen, without any supernatural power.

I understand that people find in some religions and churches comfort, camaraderie, peace, hope, and a faith that help them overcome adversities, but it does not go beyond that. Those sentiments and desire for an supernatural help does not prove the existence of the so called "Gods." Churches are refuges for many people and for different reasons, but, unfortunately, it is only inspirational, not a scientific fact.

Other times, religion is use as an alternative to violence. And parents choose a religious education for their children to keep them away from the violence in the real world. While it may keep them safer, it does not mean that their faith is a true process.
Posted by DeusMortisEst 4 years ago
DeusMortisEst
In fact, I'm not debating Dale.G at all, but rather the owner of the website he stole his arguments from...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Plagiarism? Wow, new lows. I forsee Dale.G's future on this site being quite limited.
Posted by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Pro, is anything you post going to be an original thought? So far everything you have posted has been lifted straight from this page.
http://www3.telus.net...
Posted by DeusMortisEst 4 years ago
DeusMortisEst
Is that a conservapedia quote?
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
"The meanings you find on wiki are obviously devised by atheists to convolute and play down the evil nature of being an atheist. Satan is the author of confusion."

Nevermind. Satan apparently wrote Wikipedia! ;)
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro appeared either unable or unwilling to grasp the stated definition of atheism, as quoted. He bantered mindlessly and lost conduct points, as well.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stole three of his points, which is why I gave Con conduct and Con used one source, which is one more than Pro so I gave Con the point for sources. I think I have to give arguments to Con as Con's obligation in this debate was only really to point at the absence of the contradiction in Agnostic atheism. Pro failed to prove that Agnostic atheism is a contradiction and therefore I'm giving arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: What Pro argued makes no sense at all. He assumes that everyone has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by religious people. Some people do not even think of Gods.
Vote Placed by derkcloud 4 years ago
derkcloud
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct points for mindless banter and plagiarism. Pro failed to defend his position while also resorting to ad hominem. S&G as usual was a no-brainer.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to agree with Dale.G on the resolution. Conduct and sources to Con because of Pro's plagiarism.
Vote Placed by JasonGlenn 4 years ago
JasonGlenn
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Copying and pasting should be noted with credit given to the original author.
Vote Placed by minstrel 4 years ago
minstrel
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarizing someone else's work is not acceptable. At least fail honestly.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD the same as the majority opinion here...Plagiarism isn't cool. Neither is not making any actual arguments for your case. And I really don't understand the constant "Paddy"ing.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: For once pro actually had decent spelling and grammar. However, I am giving that point to con because pro only had decent spelling and grammar due to his plagiarism. Stealing someone else's words and pretending that they are your own is just pathetic. The un-cited source that pro used was not very good and pro failed to make any argument other than demand that his opponent go by his definition of a word.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved plagiarism with a source. Dale.G never proved a contradition or really engaged his opponent in a meaningful debate for that matter.