The Instigator
JimShady
Pro (for)
The Contender
byaka2013
Con (against)

All atheists should really be agnostics.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JimShady has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 103673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Pro

A short debate on atheism/agnosticism. Atheists believe that God does not exist, while agnostics are unsure if God exists or not.

I will be arguing that you cannot disprove God's existence, and thus all atheists should at least become agnostics.

You will be arguing that atheism should be practiced instead of agnosticism for any reasons you put forth.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals

Only 2 days to post, so please don't forfeit. Thank you to my future opponent.
byaka2013

Con

I accept.

Your premise is flawed, as has been pointed out in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
I do wish, because it makes sense.
Posted by Debating_Horse 10 months ago
Debating_Horse
All atheists should really be agnostics.

You wish! :)
Posted by Surgeon 10 months ago
Surgeon
Ok. Happy to debate cosmological arguments Jim. I will wait for a nudge from you.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
Ok, I'll start the debate within one to two days (hopefully). It will most likely focus on the cosmological argument, but I may change my mind.

Thanks, I enjoy Ben, too.
Posted by Surgeon 10 months ago
Surgeon
@JimShady

Well rather than initiate a debate in the comments section to both of your responses, I am happy to tackle you on some of the issues you raise. Either the semantics of the god-concept (something which you refer to as the "proper definition"), Anselms argument, or on cosmological origins. All are fundamentally flawed in my view as arguments in support of Theism. You can set up the debate Jim, no problem just keep it focused on 1 argument so we can explore it in detail, without wasting too many electrons!

BTW good to see Ben Shapiro making his way onto your Avatar. I enjoy watching him take down the cultural Marxists and self entitled Leftists.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
@Surgeon:

Also, you claim that you can't just assert that God can't just exist in a void. So how do you explain the big bang (and science inarguably shown that its had a beginning) form out of a void of nothing? Perhaps you could say it was formed from the collapse of another universe, but how was that one formed? Eventually you get unending regress, which is just as unacceptable as my circular reasoning with Anslem's argument. So, unless you offer an answer to how the universe was formed out of a void, you cannot attack my position on it because I can't attack yours at the moment.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
@Surgeon:

Anslem's argument is a way of explaining this, and even though it uses circular reasoning, I've said before that in the case of omnipotence, it actually makes sense to use it. An all-powerful being can self justify itself simply because we are dealing with something all-powerful. If it CAN'T justify itself, than the being is not all-powerful and thus is not God. Why can't I bootstrap that assertion, though? I'm using the proper definition of God to come to this conclusion, anything less then this conclusion would not constitute a God. It may sound unfair to your side that I get this sort of layback, but hey, that's how it goes when using the proper definitions.

I am all up for the debate one single topic on whether God doesn't or does exist. Do you want to name the topic? (No response and I will)
Posted by Surgeon 10 months ago
Surgeon
@JimShady

Hi Jim. Firm yes, but only because I see no escape from the axiomatic pre-suppositions, their corollaries and implications. If any of it were falsified, it would mean I would have to "waiver", whether I liked it or not.

Actually I was going to call you out for bare assertion and begging the question :-) . You cannot just boostrap a god from the accurate description of a void, by asserting one of his properties is omnipotence. You would need to have proved that somehow (maybe invoking Anselms ontological argument?). But you are right it is also circular.

Happy to debate you Jim. I would prefer a narrower debate than "does god exist". I generally use 5 arguments which demonstrate he doesn't. Whether you find them compelling or not is of course a result of your own pre-suppositions. The problem I find is that too broad a topic like that leads to, too much ground to cover in the available formats. Thus argumentation becomes somewhat skin deep.

If you are interested we could narrow the topic to "xyz demonstrates that god does (or does not) exist". For example if I were starting the debate, it would be something like: 1) "the primacy of existence demonstrates that god does not exist", 2) "the cartoon nature of Theism demonstrates that god can not exist", 3) "the meaninglessness of religious discourse demonstrates that god-talk points to no actual thing instantiated in reality (ie god does not exist)", etc...

Falsification. The point I am making here, is that we do not need to discuss the axioms (the ones I find compelling are those of Objectivism btw). Whether they are true or false. I am justified in being an atheist (and not an agnostic), as long as I am satisfied that those axioms are axioms, that their corollaries and their implications are true. I would further suggest the best line of attack is not the axioms per se (they are important but trivially true), but maybe the corollaries and their implications.
Posted by JimShady 10 months ago
JimShady
@Surgeon:
OK, you caught me on the straw man. I think then it would be more accurate if I said you are firm and will not waver easily from your beliefs.

You seem to be confusing a divine being with a timeless, space less void. I unfortunately don't know how to make it clearer. But I will try. The REASON God is not just a "void existing in a void" is because he is all powerful. He always WAS all powerful, and always WILL be. Basically what I am saying is that "He has the power to exist within a void because he is all powerful.

I know, I know. You will now call me out for using circular reasoning. However, I don't think it's inappropriately used when we are talking about a being you has always existed, and always will, one who has never had a beginning, and one who will never have an end (like a circle.) In fact circular reasoning DEMANDS God exists, because he is all powerful. After all, the circle dot is the metaphysical symbol for God.

My topic is not falsified because we have not discussed your axioms yet. If you wish to get into a "Does God even exist" debate, we can do that if you want.
Posted by Surgeon 10 months ago
Surgeon
@ JimShady

I did not say I was set in stone, this is your own straw man. I said there are metaphysical axioms I find compelling > that they lead to Atheism (trivially) > falsification of those axioms would cause me to revise my understanding. Until that happens then I am justified in being an atheist and not an agnostic under the definition you want to work with.

On the position of attributes, you clearly have this wrong and are now digging a deeper hole for yourself. You state "How can you be timeless and spaceless (which I admit are his attributes) without being all-powerful?". But this is clearly false. A void is timeless and spaceless, but also devoid of power which already falsifies your assertions. I would aks you to reverse it. How can something be timeless, spaceless (and immaterial) possess any power at all? Existing as it would in a timeless, spaceless and immaterial "reality", it is only useful for describing a void existing in a void. I remind you that these aren't my problems, just the meaningless god-talk and god-conceptulaisation of Theism.

I agree what I consider to be absolute truth maybe false. But my axioms would need to be disproved for that to be the case. This is not a debate about my axioms though, just that your debate topic is falsified.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.