The Instigator
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Jarhyn
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

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 11 votes the winner is...
LatentDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,043 times Debate No: 29662
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (11)

 

LatentDebater

Con

Up to you to take it.

Definitions, within reason, are up to you.
Jarhyn

Pro

As both of us are atheists, PRO apparently of the position tat the proper answer to the question of "god(s)?" is "no.", and myself certainly of the position of "that's a stupid question." there may be something here to discuss. I am myself a gnostic atheist on all propositions to the question of "what god(s)?", knowing particularly that the vital question of "god(s)?" itself has not yet been answered.

To more clearly explain my position, without the ability to externally view the universe, it's silly to act certain on the preposition of god(s). It is my position that any gnostic atheism on the question of "god(s)?" is at best an argument from ignorance, and arguments from ignorance are to be rejected.

As such, this is the shape and character of my position on the resolution.

As PRO did not outline any rules, I'll propose some: namely that neither of us engage in argument from authority, that fallacious reasoning not be used, that all usages of words be taken in good faith, and if there is a problem with such a usage, or if a usage does not seem proper for the contextual intent that the opponent ask for clarification rather than using "GOTCHA!" style tactics. In short, all I ask is that each of us abide by logical reasoning, and act in good faith.
Debate Round No. 1
LatentDebater

Con

An agnostic atheist is one who accepts God to be possible but doesn't believe in, or doubts, God's existence due to lack of evidence.

A gnostic theist asserts there to be no god based on whatever reasoning they happen to use.

Justify this please.
Jarhyn

Pro

Hey, you're the one who started this shindig and put forward a positive statement as resolution, so you have the burden of proof here. I already stated my position, namely that without the abiliy to observe context outside the universe, no position can be honestly taken in any way on the existence of gods; Hume's problem of induction is particularly valid here, and I see no reason yet to question Hume on this point.

This is to say nothing about OTHER aspects of atheism, particularly whether god(s) can possibly be more than a curiosity or bit of useless trivia, but the case still has yet to be made that it is more logical to think that there is no god than to think that the question cannot be answered.
Debate Round No. 2
LatentDebater

Con

Pro asserts one to be more logical than the other all con is doing is playing Devil's advocate.

BOP is on you my friend.
Jarhyn

Pro

Wow. So I totally missed who was arguing what. You can tell from my acceptance. I move for a draw given my stipulation of being in good faith, and apologize for the misunderstanding.
Debate Round No. 3
LatentDebater

Con

... How dare you come and take up my debate assuming you can play dumb and fall to the hands of mercy of the 'morals' of DDO voters?!

I made this debate to win or to lose. To tie would be a great shame to myself and to you for it would show lack of effort, of an equal amount, from both parties.

You wish to chicken out and hope upon my mercy and gratitude to you for being so courteous as to apologise for your ignorant stupidity beyond regard.

I shall assert that Gnostic atheism take it too far beyond the realms of what atheism itself is. Atheism is a doubt or disbelief in a deity, to then assert one knows of its nonexistence with certainty is to then refute one's reason for being atheist in first place (doubt or disbelief).

My opponent in fact has explained he meant to be con and hence AGREES with me on the matter.

There is not one single way that this is not a full out win for con.
Jarhyn

Pro

Well, in this case, the good faith of the debate is the subject at this point. I clearly explained my purpose, and since we both agree that the resolution deserves no support, and as you insist that one must win and one must lose that my stipulation that this debate be taken and engaged in good faith has been violated. As such I claim victory on the grounds of conduct, and further on the grounds that I have given a REASON for my particular views on agnostic atheism which has stood unchalleneged, my intent being clear from the start that I wished to argue in favor of agnostic atheism.
Debate Round No. 4
LatentDebater

Con

I ALSO GAVE A REASON FOR MY VIEWS: "I shall assert that Gnostic atheism take it too far beyond the realms of what atheism itself is. Atheism is a doubt or disbelief in a deity, to then assert one knows of its nonexistence with certainty is to then refute one's reason for being atheist in first place (doubt or disbelief)."

GO ONE GET THE CONDUCT VIEW.

You lost the debate.
You debated for my side.

You wasted a valuable opportunity of mien to have an actual debate by snapping this up without reading everything fully out.

this , if anything if far poorer conduct than anything ever done on this site before conduct-wise and is a complete and utter shame to the memory-space of DDO.

You have wasted no only the voter's time but your own time too and it is for this reason that I must declare you utterly annihilated.

The BOP was on you but not only did you fail to meet it you met my own BOP FOR ME.

So stop trying to twist this because when it comes to filthy tactics, I'm the inventor.

I have not only annihilated you, I have in fact won this from the very beginning since you debated for me all the way through.
Jarhyn

Pro

So you admit that we have both forwarded good reasons for the views we inended to espouse through this entire debate. I can only see that this would be good grouds for a tie on the convincingness of our arguments, and as you yourself have said, LD, you forfeit the conduct point: "GO ONE GET THE CONDUCT VIEW."

I fully admitted to my mistake as soon as I realized it. You even admit to engaging in "filthy tactics" in a debate accepted in good faith; this can only be seen as a forfeit of conduct.

It is my contention that Gnostic Atheism is necessarily an argument from ignorance, and only after I forwarded this view did you present your own argument, which itself is a no-true-scotsman fallacy. To that end, even my arguments in favor of my stated intent are more sturdy. It is in this way point in my own favor.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
@phantom Obviously likespeace is right in voting as he did. He's under no obligation to vote on arguments, particularly when it is clear that neither side in this debate presented much of an argument in any regard. I made a mistake, and it's clear from my opening statement "without the ability to externally view the universe, it's silly to act certain on the preposition of god(s). It is my position that any gnostic atheism on the question of "god(s)?" is at best an argument from ignorance, and arguments from ignorance are to be rejected." that I had been under the faulty assumption that I was accepting as CON.

Further, I know of no world where LD's awful grammar, capitalization, and spelling constitute points for S&G in his favor.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

[Humor]
Secondguy wrote:
: it's silly to act certain on the preposition of god(s).

And yet, I am certain that the preposition of the gods is "unto."
[/Humor]

In round one, Firstguy gave no clues, aside from styling himself "Con," as to which side he expected Secondguy to take.

In round two, Firstguy acted almost like he didn't want Secondguy to catch wise that he was on the wrong side. He made up some weird and twisted definitions, and asked Secondguy to justify them. He didn't say, "Hey, you're on the wrong side." He said, in effect, "Justify these peculiar definitions." Now, in Firstguy's defense, Secondguy's first post was so hard to read that Firstguy may not yet have realized that Secondguy was confused about which side he was on.

Note also that Firstguy didn't stipulate who had the burden of proof. If a Firstguy want's to shift this onto his Secondguy, he needs to make that crystal clear. It's entirely possible to initiate as "Con," argue first, and have the burden of proof. "Up to you to take it," is not a clear and compelling articulation that Secondguy has the burden of proof.

So, did Secondguy argue first? Secondguy's prose is hard to interpret. Did he think he was arguing in the first round? In round two, he makes it clear that he thinks Firstguy has that burden, and that Firstguy should get on with his argument. Time's awaisting.

If Firstguy has let Secondguy blow two rounds without knowing which side he's on, and without having any reason to suspect where Firstguy thinks the burden of proof lies, then I think Secondguy's request for a tie is vastly reasonable.

In round 5, Firstguy seems to assume the burden of proof and introduce an argument. A strange argument, inventing yet another definition for a key term of the debate.

This debate is a mess. Neither side was persuasive in the least. The burden of proof was neither agreed on nor clearly stated. I'll not vote persuasion either way.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
RFD:

I've accepted debates without realizing which side I was supposed to be on. My opponents graciously granted me a tie. That's not obligatory, but but it was nice of them. And I don't see that I was out of line to request the tie, even though it didn't have to be granted.

I certainly think Firstguy was rude to insult Secondguy for making such a request in this case.

Conduct to Secondguy. And I'll block Firstguy; I don't want to be treated thus rudely.

Secondguy was hard to parse. Couldn't even tell which side he thought he was on.

S&G to Firstguy.

Which leaves persuasion. Should Secondguy have known which side of which issue he was assuming?

Firstguy did state the resolution (in this case, the title) as an affirmative statement. It wasn't a question or a sentence fragment. Firstguy did okay here.

Firstguy did not labor the point that he was reversing the roles. I've seen enough debates screwed up by this kind of lack of clarity, that I have some sympathy for Secondguy, and think that---at least in future---Firstguy, as instigator, ought to be at pains to make it clear that he isn't Pro, that his opponent has the burden of proof, and that his opponent shouldn't make a substantive post in the final round (since Secondguy, as Pro, shouldn't get to argue both first and last). In other words, make it hard for Secondguy to make this mistake. Pro didn't do this. He didn't even restate the resolution. He just said, "Up to you to take it. Definitions, within reason, are up to you."

There's no real hint there that if Secondguy is making a mistake if he missed subtleties in the title before clicking into the debate, or missed the fact that he is styled "Pro."

I don't know that Pro is obligated to take these precautions? But these mistake-debates are a huge waste of time for all of us, so it would be nice if he at least took such precautions in the future.

===continued===
Posted by sadolite 4 years ago
sadolite
Neither side agreed on definitions or made any arguments but rather discussed conduct and bop. In my view pro should have defined the definitions and made an argument leaving con trapped only to make an argument on pros terms. no vote
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
@likespeace, that's not a valid way to vote. You can't just cherry pick what points you take into consideration. You always have to evaluate the argument points. People often don't vote on the other points because (1) they are secondary (2) those points very often don't need to be voted on and should only be voted on if there's a significant difference between the two sides.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
I'll take this. I'll set up my definitions and such when I get back from work.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I'm going to decline, but here's why:

I'm a strong atheist (I believe there are no gods) but I'm only a gnostic atheist as regards the SCG (Standard Christian God). There are plenty of gods, including Christian gods, who could exist, even though they probably don't.

So I don't think agnostic atheism is at all unreasonable.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's reaction to pro's fault was bad conduct.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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: Counter deadlychris, seven points to the opposite side is unjust.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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: Con is such an emotional wreck/crappy debater, I would feel guilty giving him any points for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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: Pro's arguments were more convincing, even if they were for the wrong side.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro accepted in bad faith or in error, then attempted to shut down the debate when such was pointed out. As Pro agrees with the Con side, I consider this debate to be forfeited
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Jarhyn voted for the wrong side.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In circumstances such as these pro can only appeal to con for a tie, not the voters. Con didn't think it should be a tie, which is reasonable, so I vote con since pro clearly didn't uphold his burden.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I see no reason why Pro should be rewarded with a win or a tie for his better conduct when he clearly failed to argue for the side he should have. I agree that there was poor conduct from both sides, and therefore give a tie on conduct.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
LatentDebaterJarhynTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had vastly superior arguments, but loses conduct by referring to pro's "ignorant stupidity" (Although i will not deny the validity of this statement).