The Instigator
leethal
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

In terms of the Christian God, we are all agnostic.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 6878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

leethal

Pro

I will be arguing PRO for the resolution that in terms of the Christian God, all human beings are agnostic. Thanks to my opponent for accepting. I will start by defining some terms, and ask that if you don't agree with the definitions presented, please don't accept the debate.

Agnosticism: "The philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, and so on — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove." [1]

Christian God: The generally accepted version of a creator God as presented by Christianity. Attributes include creator of the Universe, omnipotence, omniscience, is outside of time and space, all that cool stuff!

Knowledge: Once again, a generally accepted version of what defines knowledge will be used here. In order to say that 'S' knows 'P', three conditions must be met:
- 'P' must be true.
- 'S' must believe 'P'.
- 'S' must be justified in believing 'P'.

Now, let's suppose that 'P' is the following statement: 'the Christian God created our Universe and still exists.' Suppose that a particular person believes 'P', and feels justified in believing 'P'. You may say that somebody's reason to believe a particular thing is not worthy of being called 'justification', but justification is a very subjective thing. It would take some people no more than a crude image of Jesus on their toast to sell their TV and become born again. I, on the other hand, would want to see Jesus perform a few miracles (not David Blaine stuff like water to wine, I'm talking time travel, morphing into animals) before I believed he was any more than a hobo looking for change. The point is, if someone feels that a particular amount of proof is justification enough for them to believe, then their belief is justified.
So if 'P' is true, all 3 conditions of knowledge have been met, and that person can claim to know it. If 'P' is not true, then the person's true stance on the matter (regardless what that person calls him/herself) is agnostic. But the truth of the Christian God's existence is, at this stage, unknown. NOBODY KNOWS. Not Einstein, Dawkins, GodSands, Hovind, Nietzsche, me, you, or your local priest. Nobody has ever known, and in my opinion probably never will know one way or the other.

A lot of people (theists and atheists) like to claim that they know the answer to 'P', but they don't. Nobody does. Bertrand Russell was honest about his atheism:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." [2]

Some Christians even like to say that the existence of God is actually unknowable, because knowing he exists eliminates the need for faith. These Christians are admitting that they are agnostic without even realizing it.

I will leave my first round here. Please note that I can't verify my account, so I can't leave comments.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
draxxt

Con

Thank you, leethal, for proposing an interesting debate. Since this site is officially running on ".org" I can debate regularly from school now. That's right. I'm back!

But on to your case.

I accept all framework brought before me and will now move on to my case and, given that space isn't an issue, will move on to refuting my opponent's case. Good luck!

Resolved: In terms of the Christian God, we are all agnostic. I negate.

Now that that's seestablished up... I'm afraid that, since I am going to Harvard for their annual Speech and debate tournament, I cannot make my first rebuttal. I hope to do so in the R2, however. I will ask my opponent to extend all of his arguments in order to move this debate along smoother upon my return. Sorry and thank you for your patience.
Debate Round No. 1
leethal

Pro

My entire argument from Round 1 remains unchallenged, so at this stage the resolution is affirmed. I will await my opponent's rebuttal of my previous arguments before I put forth any more.
draxxt

Con

draxxt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
leethal

Pro

My entire argument from Round 1 remains unchallenged, so the resolution remains affirmed. Vote PRO.
draxxt

Con

I'm sorry. Truly I am. I would have loved to have debated this topic. I really did underestimate how much time Harvard takes out of a person. I'm sorry. I urge that you vote in Affirmation.
Thank you and once again, I'm sorry.
~EG
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Thanks LM. Due to the forfeit I was planning on reposting this debate, but you've since showed me the error in my argument.

It looks like another complete forfeit coming my way in another debate I'm having. This one I'll definitely repost:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Oh yeah, I vote PRO on the grounds that CON forfeits.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Ha, well sorry about. To be honest, I did read your arguments after I made that comment (in fact, I just went over them again). I read your argument initially out of curiosity as I was quickly prepared to revise my statements if it turned out that I was somehow incorrect on the matter.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
"For some reason, I find this unlikely. You probably did read my comment, only to take some offense to me claiming that I need not read your premises, hence decided to "one me up" per se by responding with what I responded with."

Haha, you got me! My point certainly wasn't that I was correct and you weren't, and in fact I agree with what you said in that comment, and can see where my fault lay in creating this debate. But I would have appreciated if you read my arguments before proving me wrong. That's all I was getting at.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hold that thought for a moment.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"This is about where I stopped reading your comment. I was just so certain I could negate whatever it is you said so I didn't bother."

For some reason, I find this unlikely. You probably did read my comment, only to take some offense to me claiming that I need not read your premises, hence decided to "one me up" per se by responding with what I responded with. However, I don't say this to be offensive. If you were offended, I shall apologize for allowing you to get the wrong idea of what I was getting at, but shall not apologize for what I've claimed. It's just obvious that by the resolution, you treat agnosticism as something which an individual has no choice but to have (at least in terms of the Christian God). However, it's merely a claim (no different than the claims of belief theism and atheism); it's merely a way of saying "I claim that there is not evidence to establish the existence of God." Even if one has erroneous reasons for making a claim, he/she is still making it nonetheless.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
"I'm quite sure I can negate it without even reading it."

This is about where I stopped reading your comment. I was just so certain I could negate whatever it is you said so I didn't bother.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Well lethal, I'll negate your argument as I'm quite sure I can negate it without even reading it.

Agnosticism is a claim concerning knowledge just as theism is a claim concerning belief. It matters little whether or not people make these claims for erroneous reasons.As long as they support the position, they are labeled as such. In other words, even if one's reasons for claiming to be a gnostic atheist are fallacious, the fact of the matter is that this is merely the person's claim, thus he/she is still supporting that position. As long as an agnostic atheist thinks that he KNOWS there is no god, this person is an agnostic atheist. The only way this person could become an agnostic atheist would be if he/she were to agree to said claim in the first place.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
leethaldraxxtTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
leethaldraxxtTied
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 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
leethaldraxxtTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
leethaldraxxtTied
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