The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Agnosticism is the most logical perspective on religion and spirituality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,796 times Debate No: 36404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)




Agnosticism is the most logical perspective on religion and spirituality

The counter to this would be that either a form of theism or atheism is more logical

round 1 accept
round 2 independent arguments (no rebuttals)
round 3 Rebuttals


I accept the debate and will look forward to the discussion with Pro. Also, I will be arguing for Gnostic Theism.
Debate Round No. 1


In this round we will make our opening arguments.

My stance is (Pro) that agnosticism, the perspective or philosophy of being undecided about the existence of God(s), is the most logical (spiritually/religiously).

There could be a God(s), but there also might not be a God(s)

I'll start with my thoughts on why there could be a God(s).

(1) God(s)

(1a) Self awareness
Humans are self-aware (as far as we can tell most people will agree on that) to a degree equal or exceeding all life forms on this planet. We do not ask simply what we are (atoms, molecules, proteins, membranes, cells), who we are (race and heritage, omnivorous mammalian species, musical tastes, etc.), but the all important stumper of WHY we are. (probably better phrased "Why are we?..alive? on this planet? etc.") We are astoundingly curious animals, astoundingly smart and clever when we manage to avoid being idiotic. We are able to take near total dominion of the other creatures around us thanks to our smarts and our anatomy. We can reshape the earth and our surroundings to meet exactly what we need. It begs the question "How could anything so complex and profound as man have come about without some all-knowing power molding us with purpose and precision?" That leads me to think there could be a God(s)

(1b) Difficult to *prove* that God doesn't exist.

Many atheists will use physics and cosmology to argue that God could not exist, not even have caused the Big Bang as according to that hypothesis of the creatoin of the universe as we know it. Yet , they fail to see that perhaps its not so cut and dry, that God(s) could be something that can't be measured, defined, mathematically proven or disproven. God could be beyond us, beyond this realm of being. God might not operate under a set of definable laws of physics.

Then I think about why there could be no God(s)

(2) No God(s)

(2a) A lot of horrible things happen in the world, a great deal of which seem totally random and out of our control. Natural disasters like floods, wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis all happen and kill so many people, believers of all various religious faiths and non-believers alike. It's indiscriminate killing, often mass killings, and if God were in control of these things or even slightly responsible then he/she/it/them are massacring us, their very own crowning achievement, in cold blood. It would be like God were some bipolar child who makes things just so he can later smash them. Who grows a garden, waits for the flowers and shrubs to bloom, waits for the vines and stalks to bear fruit, and then sets fire to it or pulls out a weedwacker and mangles it all?

(2b) Genetic defects, especially those that immediately affect children. If there is a God or Gods and they are , well, godlike... and most religions seem to consider their diety(s) infallible , then why are there children born with genetic defects? Why are kids born missing limbs, with incurable ailments and forced to suffer, cerebral palsy, tay-sachs, angelman syndrome, etc., etc.
Children should not have to suffer, should be innocent until proven guilty (of sin) and should be born whole and healthy if they are creations of a God(s). One potential explanation would be that God is fallible or he doesn't care, isn't a micro-manager you might say. He created the genetic language of life but there were some bugs and errors in that language. Perhaps it is an imperfect system, but its the best that can be done?

(3) Ancient Religious Books

Many theists point to books like the Bible or the Quran as their "evidence" for God. To a skeptic like myself, they appear more like stories and a loosely written account of histories of various influential peoples in the Middle East and Mediterranean parts of the world. Why would God not reveal himself now when we could record it, document it with audio, video? We understand so much more now of how the world works, how biology, chemistry, and physics work. Why not make sure that we understand that these are things that he used and created for his purpose? (too many rhetorical questions, i know) His message could be brought to everyone and unify the peoples of the world, end war as we know it, likely end all hate, end violence, end famine . I'm sure we might be discussing Holy books in the rebuttal round so I'll leave it alone mostly.

Theisms are based largely on hope. Hope that there is some greater meaning, larger context to our existence. Hope that there is a heaven, hope that suffering in this world is a trial and if we pass the test we will be rewarded. Hope that this world, our lives, are not just a series of random events, that DNA did not come to be from some spontaneous chemical reaction and life created by simple accident in a primordial soup of molecules.

Atheism is so lacking in hope its frightening. (I am presuming that most Atheists also think there is no afterlife of any sort, once dead physically that's it, its game over, back to nothingness) If there is no greater purpose, no continuing storyline for us beyond physical death than it seems to me that we are simply hosts for our DNA. We are being used and nothing beyond the recombination of our DNA through offspring is accomplished.

I hope there is a God and something after death, but I am skeptical about it nonetheless and therefore I'm an Agnostic. I feel that makes the most sense based on our current knowledge and my own powers of observation and critical thinking.

You might call me a hopeful agnostic, unsure but hopeful

I welcome the argument from my opponent.



The point of religion is not to acknowledge there is a God and then be a good person because of that. Yes, that plays a role, but the main issue of religion is to have a relationship with the Creator. How can a husband love his wife if he isn't sure whether she is real or not? How can a person say there might be a god, then not try to see if they can establish a real relationship with him? People who are atheists exist as such because they maintain that they cannot find a real relationship with the Creator, and that the spiritual feeling religious people get is due to an alternative and naturalistic explanation from the brain. I hope I do not present a false dichotomy, but it seems to be that either people truly experience a relationship with God, or they are delusion-ed to think so because of natural processes in the brain.

As I am a Christian, I will argue that theism is the most logical choice, because I believe that I and 88 percent of the world's population do not live in delusion.

Painting a picture

Many religions exist in the world today, and all make claims of the supernatural and generally some type of god. All religions agree that life has meaning and each religion provides a way to achieve said meaning. But just because the religions differ on the semantics of the supernatural, it does not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. Rather, should a god exist, we would expect different groups of people to have differing opinions of such a being.

Allow me to provide a metaphor:

100 people live in a village. Outside of this village may be a person named Fred. None of the people in the village have personally met Fred. 88 people say Fred exists, but by different means. 28 people say they have met Fred's son, so they know Fred exists. 21 people said they met a messenger sent by Fred who had direct quotations by Fred proving that he exists. 49 say that they have met various associates of Fred, all giving their own opinions of Fred, so this group also assumes Fred exists. 10 people say that they have never met anyone associated with Fred, yet they assume some version of Fred exists because of the 88 people in the village disputing the exact personality of Fred. Lastly, the remaining 2 people in the village completely deny there being any Fred at all, claiming there is no observable evidence that Fred exists.

( The statistics given resemble the actual demographics of religion and atheism in the world used by these two sources: )

I am not saying that because most people believe in God, he must exist. Rather, I am saying should a God exist, we would expect most of the world to be religious. Atheism generally takes the affirmative of a worldview that gods don't generally exist based on a lack of observable evidence. I argue that lack of observable evidence is not a valid reason to deny the phenomena of a vastly religious world.

If we were to only accept things based on observable evidence, then we cannot believe:

Darwinian evolution
Most of human history
Any personal story that someone shares with you
Any second-hand accounts of events

Arguments against agnosticism and reasons for theism.

So far I feel that I have established a fair understanding of the demographics of religion (or lack thereof) in the world and why it isn't the most logical perspective for the atheist position by merely the lack of observational evidence. I will now show why agnosticism also does not meet the criteria for the best perspective, and then I will make a positive claim for theism.

Two metaphors:
    1. You cannot remain neutral on a moving train.

    1. Imagine a boy having never met his father. Some of his family asserts the father is dead, the rest of the family assert he is still alive. The boy can either seek evidence that shows the father is dead and move on with his life, or seek out his father should he be alive, but remaining ignorant is not the best option in this situation.

If God exists, asserting a religion may give you the benefit of an afterlife. If God doesn't exist, asserting as such gives you complete freedom in the way you choose to live your life (this is not to say that religious people don't have freedom, but without religion sin does not exist, hence the “extra” freedom for atheists). Remaining ignorant provides no such benefit- no determined afterlife and no assurance of complete freedom during life

People with spiritual lives tend to live longer.

I believe that atheists, agnostics, and theists can all agree that methods of increasing the length of your life are automatically the most logical. Should my opponent disagree with this statement, he should prove that a shorter life is the more logical goal of humanity. (He may argue that he would rather sacrifice the extended life because he does not want a spiritual life, but my point is that the most logical and rational thing is to extend our life when we are able to.

Closing Statement

We can know if God exists by committing to have a relationship with the Creator. Even though this may sound cheesy, as already stated this generally leads to a longer life and potentially an infinite afterlife.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponents starts by using an analogy:

"How can a husband love his wife if he isn't sure whether she is real or not? How can a person say there might be a god, then not try to see if they can establish a real relationship with him?"

It seems my opponent is basically saying God should be as obvious as another human being that can be confirmed with all 5 senses. Later in his arguments he reasons that observable evidence is not needed for knowing if something exists or is true:

"I argue that lack of observable evidence is not a valid reason to deny the phenomena of a vastly religious world.
If we were to only accept things based on observable evidence, then we cannot believe:
Darwinian evolution
Most of human history
Any personal story that someone shares with you
Any second-hand accounts of events

I thnk it would be wise to question and doubt these things. Being agnostic doesn"t mean that a person blindly accepts Darwinian evolution as fact. I"d certainly be skeptical of human history and stories of events both first and 2nd hand. People lie, people make stuff up. That is why the scientific method was created. When someone publishes something in a science journal, you have the opportunity to test what they are saying for yourself. Science is all about reproducibility. You don"t accept anything as fact until it is shown to be reproducible. I am not someone who thinks history as written is exactly how it happened.
A very common argument once a theist admits that God cannot be sensed with the 5 human senses is that we must take it on "faith".

My opponent talks about the "spiritual feeling" that prayer can provide. Some call it a "spiritual high" and they affirm their belief that it can only have one of two causes, "either people truly experience a relationship with God, or they are delusion-ed to think so because of natural processes in the brain." To that I"d counter by saying that people who meditate experience the same chemical phenomena, sense of euphoria (release of endorphins) in the brain. Most Buddhists meditate to achieve emptiness and a calmed, peaceful state of mind, not to cultivate their relationship with god.

My opponent uses the idea of popularity, religion in this case, as determining probability, truth and rationality (logic).

Lets explore that. I seem to recall that many popular notions that humans have had (and plenty they have now) are completely absurd and unfounded. Here is a list of 11 such health examples including, shark cartilage curing cancer, lobotomy curing mental illness, Coca Cola's Vitamin Water brand of drinks being healthy, tobacco curing ailments, bloodletting curing disease.

With such logic, rumors with no basis in fact or evidence become true if enough people believe them to be true.

(2) "methods of increasing your life are automatically the most logical" My opponent cites some medical study attempting to link religion to lifespan. My opponent then challenges me saying " he should prove that a shorter life is the more logical goal of humanity He may argue that he would rather sacrifice the extended life because he does not want a spiritual life, but my point is that the most logical and rational thing is to extend our life when we are able to." This seems to assume that the length of your life in years is the most important aspect of someone's life, not perhaps how they live those years. Modern humans live far longer than our ancestors ( ) and is far more dependent on our diets and medicine (thanks to science!) than religion. Most make it to their 60s and 70s at least. There are a lot of ways to increase one's lifespan besides being religious. They include things like always getting 8 hours of sleep, eating oatmeal for breakfast every day of your life, avoiding fatty meats like pork, eat only organic foods, avoiding alcohol and drugs, avoiding driving or riding in cars. So basically, don't party during your teens and 20s, don't enjoy bacon, sausage or ham, don't experiment with anything that might damage your longterm health, use cars (which are the cause of a lot of deaths) sparingly. I think most people are not willing to do all those things just to add a few more years to their lifespan. I think most would say, live your life, enjoy yourself, have fun. Better to live a shorter life that you enjoyed and don't regret missing out on things (which you would cause organic food is expensive!) than to grow old and feel you could have had so many more experiences. Also, living to extreme old age is probably not as great as some would think. Oh it sounds cool when someone lives to 100 and beyond, but is it? Lucky few retain their independence, both physically and financially, deep into old age. But if you are like many, the waning years of life are years filled with pain, pills, and confusion. I personally am not running out to join a religion so that I can live to be 100 and be frail and helpless those last 15-25 years.

A few final points for my case for Agnosticism being logical:

Those who are paid to think logically in their profession, scientists that is, are more likely to doubt the existence of God

I say that observable, reproducible evidence is important for determining fact and truth. Since there is no reproducible evidence for the existence of God, yet none for disproving God either, we cannot be 100% sure either way.

My opponent seems to think it's a good idea to be religious just in case there is a God and a potential afterlife. Well, what if you choose the wrong God? The God of Abraham (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) is not the same God as every other religion in the world. Plus, there are Muslims who consider Christians and Jews non-believers and heretics, and vice versa. Ah, this reveals the fear element and militant elements of many Theistic religions. Most religions say their God is the correct God and any other is wrong and dooms you to Hell. (this makes me think of the Eskimo asking the priest why he told him about Hell in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard ) Some go so far as to say it is the duty of a true believer to send non-believers to this Hell as quickly as possible (jihad). This is how many religions use fear to drive conformity and unity within a community. Religion seems to be born of Hope but lives through Fear. As a child I was very afraid of Hell, but as a child I also believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I believed those things because those I trusted told we they were real. I hadn't yet developed the ability to use logic and critical thinking to make sense of things I observed and my surroundings to decide which things were real, which things were not real, and which things I couldn't be sure were real or not.

We have the ability to think and question.
If we are creations of a God(s), then we were given this ability by God(s).
To not think and question would be wasteful of God-given ability, yet to have no doubts about God is to not think.
To have doubts yet declare that there is 100% certainty the existence of a God(s) is simply dishonest and fooling one's self. When enough thought is put into this, agnosticism and skepticism is the most logical conclusion



I see that my opponent sees himself as a “hopeful agnostic”, and I thoroughly respect and understand his position. As with my metaphor in my opening argument, there are many different religions with even more disagreements as to what spiritual truth is. I hope to present an adequate argument for Christianity to sever his doubts of religion.


Why are there natural disasters?

[I]n various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.” Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 24.

Natural disasters are not only mentioned in the Bible, but as shown, they seem to be in God's control. Now, there are many positive aspects to natural disasters, as they bring people together and allow for people to show their love by helping to support the victims of natural disasters. However, it is also noted that they cause collateral damage- the deaths of innocent people. If God truly does exist, this is not entirely a bad thing. Even though the innocent die, they are free of guilt and sin, and their reward is eternal life. It should also be noted that Scripture depicts God as the cause of the greatest natural disaster of all- the flood of Noah's day. The story leaves us to believe that God willingly destroyed every human being except Noah's family. God gives and takes away, seemingly making no exception whether the person be guilty or innocent. But the innocent are those who will be rewarded, so integrity is what we must maintain.

Why are there genetic defects?

Genetic defects exist because of mutations. As Christians, we believe that Adam and Eve were created perfectly, but because of sin, we opened ourselves up to mortality and an imperfection of life. It is agreed that children should not have to suffer, but as already stated, the innocent who maintain integrity are those who are rewarded. All humans are born with defects in one way or another, and we all have our own battles to deal with. If a god exists, he should look upon with favor those who won those personal battles.

Religious Books

One must understand that, yes, religious books are numerous and written by ancient men, but that does not necessarily lead to them having no benefits to the current generation of humanity. Religious books reflect the philosophies of various cultures and provide an insight on what life's meaning may be. Religion itself is man-made, and all religious thought seeks to bridge the gap between the ignorance of man and the knowledge of the divine. When it comes to the Bible, there are three ways to understand it: Everything in it is completely accurate history; Everything in it is true history with ancient people ascribing certain things to what they thought was supernatural; or it is mostly allegorical. The allegorical method helps to explain why there aren't modern revelations of God, although I understand this isn't a convincing argument. To truly give an adequate answer, one must realize that if the Bible is historically accurate, revelations from God only came once every few centuries to certain people, which may be a phenomenon that continues to happen today. The belief in Christianity is that there will be a second coming of Jesus, which everyone will see, and will finally provide the evidence requested.

Christianity has become a religion that claims Jesus as the Messiah, and should anyone not adhere to some fundamental beliefs like the one just presented, they are prescribed to burn in an everlasting torment. However, this 'good news' of the gospel was not the original intention. Before Judaism, there were no creeds of faith, mankind's purpose was to live a righteous life while acknowledging their Creator. This is what Jesus came to re-establish- the Jews were set out to be a priestly nation of the world, and that is why the Messiah came through them. A true Christian lives to spread the good news- that there will be a resurrection, that life does not end with death. The way to this gift relies on how a person treats his life- not to what particular religion or creed he adheres to, and those who choose not to live righteously simply will not be resurrected (as opposed to burning for eternity). There is no need to worry about choosing the wrong religions, so long as you choose to live for the Creator of the universe. Many religions disagree on the semantics of which man-made creeds bring us closer to the Creator, but these disagreements do not negate the idea of God, they are merely what we would expect should a God exist- people will disagree about what His truth is.


My opponent tries to argue that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he is to believe in God. With the separation of church and state and the overarching plea for naturalistic explanations for everything, one should expect scientists to be generally atheistic or agnostic. Should scientists publish articles that include any reference to Intelligent Design, they are usually forced out of their position. When one is forced not to believe in God, then yes, we should expect them to more than likely be atheist. (See the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” for source)

(I could make a list of many scientists who made some of the biggest contributions to science and were also superbly religious, like Sir Isaac Newton, but appealing to authority is a fallacy that I will avoid. The point is, the case can be made for both sides, that either the more intelligent, they will be more atheistic/theistic.)

Closing Statements

There are many methods to increase the length of life, as my opponent has mentioned, but the point is to give life quality, not quantity. My stance allows both: life having great meaning with spirituality while a likely increased length of years because of that. I can have my cake and eat it too.

We are endowed with the ability to reason and speculate. This was not so we could remain in ignorance, but so that we could make conclusions that should ultimately lead to seeing a world that appears in every way designed. Affirming that God exists provides more fulfillment in life than would living in an indefinitely questioning state.

I thank my opponent for his thoughtful responses and for this insightful discussion.

Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago

I am someone who knows very well the pointlessness of negativity. Your life can crumble around you and feel totally out of your control, but you must find a way to keep going and keep living (mine did, I'm disabled with no diagnosis, dependent on forearm crutches, sit most of the day [silver lining is that my arms function well more or less and can move around with the crutches with almost no leg effort required]) Most things have some positive aspect to them, but certain things are so devastating and tragic there is nothing we can do but grieve. The earthquake in Haiti was just awful for example , over 100,000 people dead, their capital city destroyed.

I'm not arguing that faith in a religion or a God is a bad thing here, only that it's not logical to not have doubts. For many people they need it. I'm not arguing that religions should be gotten rid of. People are free to believe what they wish. If it helps them and doesn't hurt others in the process, I say cool beans. I simply doubt to the point that I don't consider myself gnostic theist like my opponent and presumably yourself. I DO think it (the people) bad when people use religion (or atheism) for rationalizing violence, intolerance, and descrimination
Posted by GarthVader 5 years ago
Pining - What attitude should one take towards things which they have no power to change? As the saying goes, isn't it better to make lemonade when given lemons? Of what benefit is there in maintaining a sour attitude towards such things? And do people in general pefer to be around those in such circumstances who maintain negative attitudes or positive attitudes and why? Moreover, if those persons inflicted by such misfortunes strive to look past them, why shouldn't we?

One doesn't have to be religious to see that there is no value in maintaining a negative attitude towards misfortunes by viewing them as simply pointless and random and wrong. If hopelessness and a negative attitude towards uncontrollable circumstances is a mandatory consequence of being a godless fellow, then I would propose that possessing such a sour attitude in itself should be considered an evil, and atheism should therefore be avoided, and religion embraced.

Do you not agree that looking for silver linings is obviously best, both for one's self and one's society?
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
I would like to thank my opponent for a gracious and respectful debate
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago

How can you say dying early, being robbed of a full opportunity at life on Earth is a good thing? Or how about being mentally retarded, constantly confused, afraid, or unable to fully interact with the world around you? your attitude towards these things is fundamentally different than mine and I don't understand it. I'm not sure you are aware of the suffering taking place in this world. Most of the suffering is not talked about, not on the news.

I know its a common philosophy of Christians to rationalize suffering as a test, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and stuff like that. Of all the religions out there I find Buddhism (which is non-theistic) the most interesting. The cycles of life and death, the idea of a soul trapped, cycling between the 6 realms, our realm the 4th.

I think what we can learn from this is that an agnostic, science-focused person like myself and a Christian theistic-focused person like yourself are not going to ever come to an agreement on this stuff

It feels like you won't allow yourself to think that things that happen are wrong or pointless or random. I've come to accept that things happen that we wish didn't and there isn't always a silverlining. I suppose it's frightening to think that we came about by chance and there might be no lasting purpose to our lives.
Posted by GarthVader 5 years ago
Pining - Regarding your comment on premature death, I don't really see why that should be a problem either. If there be a god, and every man has a soul, then the premature death of one's physical body should be seen as a good thing. If after death, one is spirit and not flesh, then we are released from all the frailties of our bodies; hunger, thirst, pain, disease, old age, etc.. If there be a god, why should one be concerned about a premature death? Unless, of course, that god is going to judge each man according to the deity's own sense of good and evil. Then you might have a point. But in the case of children, if they are truly as innocent as you say they are, then what have they to fear from judgment? Are they not actually better off because they are still innocent, than those who die as adults and have lost their innocence and become guilty? Is it not the guilty who have reason to fear judgment, and not the innocent? How then can you say that the innocent children who die prematurely, have suffered an evil, when in fact they would be gaining a favorable judgment, which they might not have recieved had they lived long enough to become guilty.

But if there be no god, then premature death is an unavoidable fact of life over which man has no control, so it makes no sense at all to look at it as being an evil. And if there be no god, then good and evil are arbitrarily defined by each man, for there is no innate established standard by which all men agree on what is good and what is evil, and there is no one greater than man to direct him in the matter. So, for the godless man, the only sensible thing to do is to define premature death as a good and move on.
Posted by GarthVader 5 years ago
Pining - The point of suffering, if there be one, is this. Suffering is the process by which one builds patience and endurance which results in self-control. In other words, it teaches one to master both mind and body and puts that mastery to the test. In much the same way that precious metals are refined from raw ore; the impurities are burnt away by intense heat so that what remains is what is most valued. It doesn't really matter whether the disaster is natural or man made, large scale or personal. All that matters is how one learns to deal with trials.

Take, for instance, Helen Keller. She was blind, deaf and mute and was quite a hopeless case to most. And yet, even in the face of such misfortune/evill, she did not allow her physical weaknesses to overcome her spirit. By faith, she triumphed over the mountainous barriers that stood before her by learning to patiently endure seemingly insurmountable hardships. Even to this day, she stands out as one of the most courageous persons of her time.

I'm really not advocating that some deity has scripted out everyone's lives so that they have no free-will. I don't find much point or credibility to that. What I do find reasonable, however, is that all of the physical maladays that plague mankind can serve to either destroy the attitude/life of the individuals that experience them, or they can serve to refine the character of those same individuals so that they become stronger persons than they were before. But, it is up to the individual to decide whether they will become weaker or stronger.

As far as what I mean by purpose, is it not obvious to you that a creator creates things with a purpose in mind? A car is created for the purpose of transporting people. A farm is created for the purpose of growing food. An arificial heart is created for the purpose of prolonging life. So the question I am posing to you is this: if you believe in a creator of mankind, for what purpose did he create man?
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
Now you've lost me Garth. The suffering I speak of is not the kind that builds character. I'm talking death by natural disaster; drowning in a flood or tsunami, crushed by a collapsed building in an earthquake, impaled by debris in a tornado or simply carried away. I'm talking incurable genetic disease and disabling diseases, Not like getting picked on at school or the girl you have a crush on in high school rejecting you and going to Prom with a football jock. I'm not even talking losing a limb to a terrorist's bomb like in Boston. Children with incurable cancer never driving a car, never dating, never getting drunk

Perhaps premature death builds character?

I'm really not sure what purpose you are referring to. I think it's humorous when religious people think that "everything happens for a reason" or "they have some specific and special purpose". Not everyone can embrace the chaos that is life I suppose. This is a silly argument if one of the people involved feels that every event , no matter how minor, is pre-ordained. Some grand script.

I had a friend who firmly believed that there was no free will, none whatsoever. If our judicial system adopted such logic anyone accused of a crime could simply say that they had no control of the situation. murder, rape, was pre-ordained, it was not an act of free will. Its lunacy, certifiable lunacy BUT that 's another discussion entirely
Posted by GarthVader 5 years ago

Yes, the point is good. But the question is, does that observation move you to reconsider the confidence you have in remaining ignorant of a creator? After all, if one exists, which you indicated you were hopeful, then how can you have any confidence at all that you are fulfilling the purpose for which he created you? And if you do not fulfill that purpose for which you were created, then how can you have any confidence that he will be pleased with your performance?

Also, why does suffering and tragedy present such a problem as to the existence of such a creator? I do not know if you have any children, but if you did, and it was within your power to prevent your child from ever experiencing any event which caused that child grief, anger, jealousy, resentment, pain, anguish and whatever else you can think you suppose your child's character would become stronger or weaker as a result? Is there nothing by which men, as individuals, can benefit by experiencing such things?
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
good point Garth, very thoughtful
Posted by GarthVader 5 years ago
Pining - What is rational to one, is irrational to another. Do you also have faith that, if there be a god, that he, being far superior to you in knowledge and understanding and wisdom, will share the same views as yourself of what is rational and what is irrational?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by countzander 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Agnosticism and theism are not mutually exclusive. Neither is agnosticism and atheism. You can believe something but not know whether you're right.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: They both used sources that back themselves. They both had good spelling. I have to say Con put up a better argument. His husband/wife hit religion dead on the spot. Overall, both did put forth a great argument. I just felt Con's was better.