Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism
History is laden with examples of reformers, whose missions originally intend to shed all the religious (or any other differences) and promote unity & harmony. However, the countdown begins when the supporters of the erstwhile reformer classify themselves as a unique cult and start claiming to be a superior race; also to resort to coax more and more people into their herds. To Look at the doctrine of atheism in the aforesaid context: atheists out rightly denounce all the beliefs & reject theists’ opinions. Often, some even resort to villainize theists in historical contexts. Just in an analogy to the right wing extremists who denounce non believers.
Galileo, Darwin were once abused for their maverick ideas that challenged the mainstream ideology. Today, the prime agenda of atheists is theist bashing. Setting aside, the kind (or means) of abuse, I feel, if atheistic doctrine, when taken too seriously, might set the history to repeat, of course, the role of a theist is now to be subjected to harassment! Often, those hardships of theists in communist nations keep surfacing.
If imposing belief is a form of extremism, imposing disbelief too is extremism! Hence I feel, agnosticism, where one doesn’t find it so important to decry others’ belief or disbelief is a more relevant doctrine. It is a choice where history isn’t interpreted in a contemporary sense to abuse the erstwhile practices and more importantly to realize the importance in looking forward over backward in the consequence of the progress of the mankind.
To conclude "agnosticism is more meaningful"
Having beat me in one round, do take a time and read that I've actually posted!
I've never said may or may not be God; instead "things beyond human perception exist; but they need not necessarily be attributed to some supreme being or some supernatural power".
Neither theists have credible evidence to prove that a God exists nor can atheists answer everything.
“Either God is Man’s greatest mistake, or Man is God’s greatest mistake”
Congrats for your winning streak!
Agnosticism is neither a religion nor a race. Atheists simply put their trust in science? Here is an example: the downgrading of Pluto as a mere member of the Kuiper belt faced opposition and a new term dwarf planet was invented. Those who couldn’t embrace a simple change of planet downgrading are those to be trusted – for you to put your trust on science. It is those scientists who drive the science! Agnostics, in such contexts, can look beyond inventing new terms. An Atheist trusting science is just analogous to a theist trusting in God. Only, the sources that are trusted, change!
Your example also made absolutely no sense.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|