The Instigator
jd6089
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Atheism verse agnostic

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 7 votes the winner is...
izbo10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 18086
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

jd6089

Pro

Resolved: The agnostic approach is superior to the atheistic approach.

atheism: The position that there are no deities.

How can one know with certainty that god doesn't exist.

There are big debates and arguments on the existence of god, there are philosophy professors who believe in god.
How can one claim to Know with certainty that there is no god. To take a definite position on such an important and unclear matter is in my opinion foolhardy.

Even if you have arguments against god. There are counter arguments and great geniuses who devote their life to debating this. This has been going on for thousands of years. How can it be clear that there is no god.

The agnostic approach is therefore more appropriate for such a matter.
It is the approach of open mindedness and objectivity.
izbo10

Con

Thanks to my opponent firstly we must establish definitions

Theist- one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

gnostic- Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

a(prefix)- no, absence of, without, lack of, not

http://wordinfo.info......

So, when it comes to belief in god, we have this dichotomy:

theist as defined: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

and atheist- not one who believes in god.

This is basic, either you contain the positive attribute of belief or The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

or you do not. So, in terms of belief there are theists and atheists.

When it comes to knowledge there are agnostics and there are gnostics. If, you really want to throw in the word agnostic to the theological question of belief, one must then decide are you agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

Agnostic atheist meaning one who lacks belief in god, but also lacks the knowledge or agnostic theist one who possesses the positive attribute of belief in god, while lacking knowledge. Perhaps my opponent is confusing agnostic with weak and strong atheism.

weak atheism- a person who does not hold the positive position that there is no god, but lacks the belief in god.

strong atheism- a person who does hold the position that there is no god, therefore has no belief in god.

In conclusion, when asked if this was about belief in god, my opponent clearly said yes. Yet, his entire position being of the root word gnostic has to do with knowledge not belief. So, the position is non-sequitur. Even if the person says they don't know if they believe in god, that does not mean the person does not meet one of the definitions. In this case, that person should be atheist, as they clearly don't place trust or confidence in the existence of god. Which is what by definition belief in god is, and by definition since they are not one who places trust or confidence in the existence of god, they do not believe. This makes said person atheist. One of only 2 possible positions when it comes to belief.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
F-16 I would say the reason I was able to exploit this, is he really didn't understand that the position he was defending was weak atheism, not agnosticism.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
F-16 I would say the reason I was able to exploit this, is he really didn't understand that the position he was defending was weak atheism, not agnosticism.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
(cont from RFD) clear definitions on what the terms mean. Lacking clear definitions from Pro, Con was left to make his own interpretations so no loss of conduct despite the definitions being somewhat biased toward Con's side.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was completely unpersuasive to this strong atheist. But Con's arguments weren't even on topic. So the only point I'm giving is for conduct. I think it's rude of Con to accept a debate without intending to talk about the topic of that debate. I agree with Con's definitions; I prefer them to Pro's definitions. But Pro set up the debate. He clearly tried to argue that weak atheism makes more sense than strong atheism, and Con never addressed that topic.
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 5 years ago
InsertNameHere
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to misunderstand his original position. Also, con actually used sources.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: stupid debate was stupid
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, I agree with the below voters who said that Pro screwed himself over when he set a one-round debate. Secondly, I was surprised at Izbo10 for his well written rebuttal considering all the **** said about him in the forums but args definitely to Con for a more comprehensive analysis than Pro. I would have given conduct to Pro because it was obvious he was arguing for strong or weak atheism which was exploited by Con but it is the instigator's responsibility to give (cont in comments)
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: One-round debates automatically result in a loss for the instigator due to its structure...
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
jd6089izbo10Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Shouldn't do one round debates = instant loss for instigator.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
jd6089izbo10Tied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Self explanatory really.