The Instigator
AznMagic
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Militant Ignostic Weak Agnostic Atheism!

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  
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: 12/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,703 times Debate No: 14108
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

AznMagic

Pro

I wrote this up a long while ago. I want someone smart to come in here and attack weaknesses in the logic of this thing, because that can only lead to good things! Either I end up with more confidence in what I believe, or I end up revising what I believe because it's wrong. It's win-win =D

Militant:
You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you. And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people. It's, at the very least, enabling those who can and do hurt people/society/culture/humanity.

Ignostic:
What do you mean by the word "god"?
If this is spinoza's god that reveals himself as the natural world and universe itself, then sure I believe because that fact is infallible - the universe obviously exists. The belief is merely philosophical.
If we're talking about a supernatural being, omnipotent and omniscient, and the creator of all things... that's a very different definition of "god".
Also very different are the definitions of the word "god" in regards to christianity, hinduism, ancient greek or roman religions, ancient egyptian religions, mormonism, scientology, etc. etc. etc.
For some, footballer Diego Armando Maradona is "god". There is an actual church and religion dedicated to him. If their definition of "god" can be Maradona, then god exists because maradona does. His existence, however, doesn't mean he is supernatural in any way.
The word "god" must be clearly defined first before you consider the question "does god exist?"

Weak Agnostic:
I'm agnostic because some things are beyond our understanding at this moment, as many things have been all throughout history. We should be humble enough to admit when we just don't know with any level of certainty, rather than to claim something as absolute truth. But I'm willing to change my position on the matter depending on new advances in science, philosophy, or etc. which may present new ideas or evidence.
This is as opposed to a strong agnostic who would claim that we don't know and never will. Although unlikely, it's still a false absolute truth to claim there is zero possibility we might know something else in the future we didn't in the past.

Agnostic Atheism:
In regards to a personal god, or any other definition of god that is more specific than what is knowable with certainty... it's possible but unlikely.
vardas0antras

Con

Without ado, lets begin:

Militant:
Definition:
"vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers."
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Observations:
Militancy ignores ignorance. In other words militant people completely disregard the chance of them being wrong.
Responding to my opponent:
"You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you"
According to who ? You ? That is not convincing.

" And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people"
o Are you certain that you're right ?
o Hurting people ? I certainly without any dubiety believe in Christianity. I became many times more altruistic and improved my own hence other people's life. Now prove me wrong?
o Sources and valid examples, please.
My own argument:
o What if you're wrong ?
o Will provide after I see my opponent's response.

Ignostic:
Observation:
"Ignostic" is not a real word. I'll have to use the definition presented by wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Responding to my opponent:
"What do you mean by the word 'god'?"
Supreme being
"The word "god" must be clearly defined first before you consider the question 'does god exist?' "
I've just did that.
Arguments (quotes from wikipedia):
"position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts." I need proof.
Request:
Elaborate your position on this so that we would have something to debate, thank you.

Weak agnostic:
Definition:
"Weak agnosticism is the assertion that, at present, there is not enough information to know whether any deities exists, but that such might become knowable."
http://en.wikipedia.org...#
Observation:
o I need proof.
Responding to my opponent:
" things are beyond our understanding at this moment"
So?

" claim something as absolute truth."
Nothing technically is 100% certain but that's not what weak atheism is about.

"This is as opposed to a strong agnostic who would claim that we don't know and never will. "
Doesn't make weak agnosticism right but I like the comparison.
Arguments:
o Weak agnosticism =/= Doubt ; if this were untrue everybody would be an agnostic. It is a statement which needs like all other statements - prove itself. Weak Agnosticism must prove:
o All personal experiences are bogus.
o Your standard of what is certain is correct.
o Other religions provide no valid proof.
In order for weak agnosticism to fulfill its burden, it has to take a side which is according to weak agnosticism is uncertain. In other words one must be an atheist first and foremost. When one looks at things with baby eyes it appears that there is God due to popular belief, everything being created and personal revelations ; weak agnosticism is more of an argument for Atheism hence it loses its credibility of being a natural conclusion. Wherefore it contradicts itself.
o This will be elaborated after my opponent responds.

Agnostic Atheism:
Definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Observations:
o My opponent asserts that a specific God is more unlikely than an unspecific God, I need evidence.
Arguments:
o This whole debate can very easily become: "Is the Christian God real" however I don't want that (done it a million times). Please elaborate why shouldn't I believe with certainty in the Christian God? No arguments just reasons.
o I will elaborate after my opponent responds.

Thank you,
M
Debate Round No. 1
AznMagic

Pro

awesome! k here we go.

"militant people completely disregard the chance of them being wrong"
- If that was true, I wouldn't have put this up on this site. If I so firmly believe I'm right and can't be proven wrong, there would be no need for this. It'd just be stupidly trying showing off. Which this isn't. Also, "vigorously active and aggresive, esp. in support of a cause" doesn't necessarily = "completely disregard the chance of them being wrong".

"You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you"
- This whole thing was copy pasted from my facebook page. I only had this sentence up to try and spark 'interesting discussions'. I assure you I'm actually more humble than this! hahaha. Although when it comes to CERTAIN people, I do actually believe this; but that can't be generalized into a statement like this and can only be stated case by case.

"And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people"
- This again, I must apologize, is a flawed generalization and must be specified upon! Although the particular reason why the sentence written this way was, again, to nudge those with opposing views to post on the FB page.

But to specify:
- I believe it is a negative thing to have absolute certainty in 'beliefs', whether theistic or atheistic, because solid evidence is not apparent for either side and to completely disregard one or the other, even if the little proof we might have might suggest a stronger case for the other side, is wrong. It's not the logical thing to do.
- I'm sure you're aware of the terrible things organized religion has been responsible for in the past, and that goes without saying, but nowadays religions tend to be damaging in other ways. Because of religion countries are torn apart, extremists take lives and endanger safety of others, ridiculous restrictive laws are in place, some ignore science/reason/logic, etc. It would require too much space to go into detail with those things and each deserve full debates of their own http://en.wikipedia.org... but sections 4 and 5 here I present to you for now, there are also others but many negative things religion is responsible for, a reasonable religious individual might also disagree with. My position is that claiming to follow certain belief systems like Christianity or Islam for example, only empower those that have the power to inflict negativity to the world.
- Altruism and other positive qualities of a decent human being doesn't require any kind of belief systems. Who's a better person? Someone who is just because they feel it's the right thing to be good and kind to others, and logically it benefits themselves and society... or someone who behaves that way because of fear of supernatural punishment? Or even if they simply behave that way because they have to be told to do so by something that may or may not be true? Personally, I believe the former rather than the latter to be the nobler person.

"What if you're wrong?"
- If I'm wrong I'll adjust my views accordingly. That's why I put this up here.

and on to the next section:
- "supreme being" can still refer to countless different supernatural characters and interpretations.

"position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts." I need proof.
- need proof of what? that they assume too much? they do, and you've just shown that you do too. Shiva is a god, and a supreme being. So is vishnu and krishna. So is the god of abraham. so is allah (yes they're different gods, with different personalities, rules, and etc.), and zeus and odin, and many others. Apart from that, the word 'god' can also be used to describe many non-supreme-being deities. there are thousands and i trust i won't need to list them all here. this part was in response to "does god exist?" to which theists say "yes" and atheists say "no". depending on the 'god' the answer can be yes, no, or maybe. In your case the answer is 'maybe', meaning we don't have the capacity to know yet.

"I need proof."
- is there 100% proof that your god exists? the simple answer is no. could it be possible in the future? who knows what might happen in the future, i certainly don't and i think it's safe to assume that most of us mortals don't. that's your proof in support of "there is not enough information to know whether any deities exists, but that such might become knowable."

and:
- so if WA was doubt, everybody would be agnostic? there are lots of ppl unquestioningly sure about what they believe. if it was untrue everybody would not be.
- many personal experiences are 50/50. some are completely bogus and some are not. but you can't logically draw conclusions from personal experiences. it's not scientific. i don't see your point with this.
- religions do NOT provide valid proof. none of them. that's why they're still called "beliefs" and "faith", and not "fact".

"When one looks at things with baby eyes it appears that there is God due to popular belief, everything being created and personal revelations"
- since when was popular belief ever reliable? if u lived hundreds of years ago we'd thing the earth was flat. but obviously that was wrong and we kno that now. humans have a history of getting stuff dead wrong, and a humble person must always concede the possibility that human knowledge is not only limited, but not set in stone. it is mouldable, adjustable, editable, rewriteable, etc.etc.etc. all organized religions are wrong because they can't concede this fact. all holy texts are set in stone and not subject to revision. as for spirituality and beliefs apart from organized religion, strong personal biases cloud judgments many a times. if there is a part of their belief system they see to be proven wrong, and they admit and revise their body of knowledge, then congrats to them. but what is unknowable is unknowable. questions like "does god exist?" is something we don't know yet. and we shud be humble enough to admit it and not jump to conclusions and believe something just to satisfy the question.
- (everything being created) does or does not equal (there is a god)
- personal revelations? what kind of personal revelations? none of them can be proven and most are hoaxes, wishful thinking, or crazy things happening in the brain that's tricking us. not a very reliable indication of ANYTHING.
- WA is not an argument for atheism. it's an argument against the arrogance of claiming to know something when you actually don't. theism states there is at least one deity. atheism states there are no deities. WA says woah hold on a second, we don't know that yet let's not jump to conclusions here. there are no "natural conclusions" and i fail to see where there are contradictions.

"My opponent asserts that a specific God is more unlikely than an unspecific God, I need evidence."
- poseidon, god of the sea, a bearded anthropomorphic figure wielding a trident, is less likely to exist than what most of us simply refer to as "god", being an omnipotent supernatural creator of the universe. if someone plays a guessing game and asks two people to guess what he's thinking of and #1 says 'animal' and #2 says 'elephant', who is more likely to be correct? specific = less chances of being right... unspecific(broader definition) = more chance of being right.

"Please elaborate why shouldn't I believe with certainty in the Christian God?"
- believing with certainty is on par with believing that you know. and we don't. if we did, there wouldn't be such a fuss about things and there wouldn't be any other religions in the world. well... not to mention all the different little denominations of christianity as well. leaving out all the negatives that can be said of the organized religion of christianity and dealing with JUST the personal belief in christianity... I believe it's a matter of recognizing the limits
vardas0antras

Con

Ill spare you the ado and begin though I must mention that this debate is a bit bewildering - there's no organization whatsoever:

Militancy:
I shall address he "But to specify" section
- "It's not the logical thing to do" Indeed.
- " terrible things organized religion has been responsible for in the past" Please be more specific as to what you mean. Do you mean the system, the people or the religion itself? No vague statements please.
Also " My position is that claiming to follow certain belief systems like Christianity or Islam for example, only empower those that have the power to inflict negativity to the world." Is this what you want to debate ? Present your case in the next round.
-"someone who behaves that way because of fear of supernatural punishment?" What ? When did I say that ? Please be more organized in the next round.

Ignostic:
- " 'supreme being' can still refer to countless different supernatural characters and interpretations."
Your point ?
Just what are you talking about ?
- "specific = less chances of being right... unspecific(broader definition) = more chance of being right."
Broader definition ? If it does not include the Christian God, I argue that its less likely.
-"believing that you know" I do know from reasons and recent personal experiences.

I RECOMMEND STARTING AGAIN IN THE NEXT ROUND BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHEN MY OPPONENT IS SO UNCLEAR THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM DOING. WHAT ARE WE DEBATING ? PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC (EMPHASIS ON BEING SPECIFIC).

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
AznMagic

Pro

- wars, witchburning, ruining what once used to be the intellectual capital of the world in the middle east, persecuting intelligent innovative thinkers, discrimination, etc. etc. I shouldn't have to lecture you on history. Even a strongly religious person should agree that religion has been used, been the rationalization for, excuse for, and reason for many terrible things in history. individuals that were religiously inspired, whole religious organizations and governments, and the ideologies themselves, all of them. I'm here to defend my position, not to give you history lessons which would take much more than 8000 characters.
- it wasn't directed specifically at you. but it still remains that a nobler person doesn't need supposed holy texts, organized system of beliefs, or the possibility of a supernatural omnipotent creator judge to want to become a better person for oneself and others. a truly GOOD person would act GOOD because it benefits others, society, and themselves, and doesn't need religion or laws to govern/inspire/influence/force/(insert any other applicable word here) to do so.

"Your point ?
Just what are you talking about?"
- read again carefully. the christian god is a supreme being. so is zeus. so are many others. that's my point.

"Broader definition ? If it does not include the Christian God, I argue that its less likely."
- need proof. this is just opinion. a very biased opinion considering you ARE christian. need OBJECTIVE proof.

"I do know from reasons and recent personal experiences."
- logical proof required. also, this is very personal and biased. opinions. need proof and/or logical reasoning.

it's hilarious that you accuse me of having weak arguments and unorganized when you present things like this from your side. If you think your side of the debate is so much more superior, PROVE IT and put this to bed. So far you've done nothing but the complete opposite. You've also failed to read my whole post and address each point clearly to try to defeat it. I suggest you at least give it a try next round.

Here it is again, summarized.

militant
- "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause"

ignostic
- the word "god" is applied to many interpretations. before being able to discuss "does god exist"? or "does god care or interfere with our lives"? or "does god have a standard for us"? or many other questions, the word "god" must be specified first i.e. a christian god, vishnu, krishna, zeus, ra, osiris, dionysis, or even maradona, spinoza's god, etc.

weak agnostic
- theism states there is at least one god. atheism is in opposition to this and states there are no gods. both are concrete and set in stone, and agnosticism states we don't know. strong agnosticism states we don't know if there is a god or not and will never know, which is also set-in-stone. weak agnosticism states we don't know but there is always a possibility we might come to know in the future, whether there is a god or not.

agnostic atheism
- whereas weak agnosticism might deal with the question of "does god exist" in general, and might hold its agnostic views on a definition like "a supernatural omnipotent creator of the universe"... agnostic atheism is more in response to things like "does the christian god exist? one that was written in the bible, has a son named jesus who performed miracles, and gave the 10 commandments to moses and caused a worldwide flood and instructed noah to build an ark etc. etc. etc.?" in which an agnostic atheist would say that it's possible but not likely, as opposed to an atheist that would say that it just can't be.

the reason i have M.I.W.A.A. written up was because i was dissatisfied with the opposing and competing views of the many non-religious beliefs. and although technically M.I.W.A.A. might be considered to fall under a type of atheism, but a much more specific type, i felt that simply calling myself an atheist suggested too many different things i didn't find to be logical, reasonable, and scientific and felt the need to specify what exactly it was i believed in.

so ultimately that's the side i'm on. that of reason, logic, and science.

i await your (hopefully) adequate response.
vardas0antras

Con

I am sorry to the readers for this confusing debate ; I don't even know if this is a debate, anymore. I'll just try from the start and see how things go.

o My Goal
"I want someone smart to come in here and attack weaknesses in the logic of this thing, because that can only lead to good things!"
For my opponent to win, he has to prove that his statements are flawless.

o Militant
- Two things which I have refuted:
"You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you"
"And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people"
This was admitted by my opponent, when he said that:
" This again, I must apologize, is a flawed generalization and must be specified upon! "
Here we can already see two flawed statements which my opponent ought to protect.
- My opponent states that organized religion has caused trouble and then he elaborates "individuals that were religiously inspired, whole religious organizations and governments, and the ideologies themselves, all of them". Now I can't defend the teachings of Islam but I can defend Christian ideology.
-"a truly GOOD person would act GOOD because it benefits others" Yes that is what my religion promotes. While atheism doesn't promote or teach anything hence generally speaking its more likely for a Christian to be altruistic.

o Ignostic
-"read again carefully. the christian god is a supreme being. so is zeus. so are many others. that's my point."
So you're trying to tell me that Zeus and Yahweh are both called "God" ? That is not in any way debatable.
-"Broader definition ? If it does not include the Christian God, I argue that its less likely."
"need proof. this is just opinion. a very biased opinion considering you ARE christian. need OBJECTIVE proof."
1. I'll leave this be seeing how this subject is too big to fit into this debate.
-"I do know from reasons and recent personal experiences."
1. I can't show you or prove to you what kind of personal experiences I had.
2. The idea was not to prove God but to prove that someone could "know".
You said: "believing with certainty is on par with believing that you know. and we don't"
So I showed that one can be certain about some things.
3."a very biased opinion considering you ARE christian."
You ought to learn respect. You have a very biased opinion considering you ARE atheist.

o Weak agnosticism
Here my opponent is trying to prove that one can be a weak agnostic without being an atheist first.
-"WA is not an argument for atheism. it's an argument against the arrogance of claiming to know something when you actually don't."
To which I respond that if one was to look at things with baby eyes, one would become a theist.
-"since when was popular belief ever reliable?"
Now you're taking a side.
- "but what is unknowable is unknowable"
Perhaps you don't know what it means to look at things with "baby eyes". It means to observe everything without any personal ideas. For example if one would observe the world with these eyes, one would see that everything is created by something else so it follows that this world had a creator. Now I know that there are about a million different refutations to this but once one considers the refutations, then that person has already taken a side. Here is equations which are fond of Atheist notions:
There is no God (Atheism) + Observations = No God
There is a God (Theism) + Observations = God
Now for your argument to work there must be no (Atheism) or (Theism) in the equation.
People speak of God and all things seem to be created - Argument (Atheism) = *Buzz* try again
People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Argument (Theism) = *Buzz* try again
People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Nothing = Theism, you won !!!

o Agnostic Atheism
I think, that I by an accident answered this previously, do you see what I mean by disorganization ? Please put a title on your responses and be specific (very, very specific). I am starting to enjoy this though I do not envy the reader.

"i await your (hopefully) adequate response."
Debate Round No. 3
AznMagic

Pro

"Here we can already see two flawed statements which my opponent ought to protect."
- I concede to you defeating those statements, however, not the "militant" part.

"Now I can't defend the teachings of Islam but I can defend Christian ideology."
- go on?

"Yes that is what my religion promotes. While atheism doesn't promote or teach anything hence generally speaking its more likely for a Christian to be altruistic."
- You still needed an organized belief system to tell you that. An atheist would say that having good morals should not be dependent on, or associated with, supernatural beings, old stories a bunch of different ppl wrote thousands of years ago that may or may not be true and are contradictory of each other, or etc. An atheist would contend that morals should come from what is logically and reasonably beneficial to oneself and others and society. Besides having said that, atheism doesn't promote or teach anything related to that kind of stuff because the term atheism on a general basis is, opposition to the idea of theism (there is at least one deity). An atheist would contend that atheism wouldn't teach, people would.

"So you're trying to tell me that Zeus and Yahweh are both called "God" ? That is not in any way debatable."
- because they are. so are many other supernatural beings.

"I can't show you or prove to you what kind of personal experiences I had."
- exactly.

"The idea was not to prove God but to prove that someone could "know"."
- i'm still waiting for you to do that.

"So I showed that one can be certain about some things."
- One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they "know". One could very well not know and still be certain about it because of their flawed personal convictions.

"You ought to learn respect. You have a very biased opinion considering you ARE atheist."
- you ought to learn respect. we both have biased opinions, i would've thought that would be painfully clear to even the simplest minds. the point here is to present an objective case strong enough to prove your side more correct than mine. still waiting for this to start.

"To which I respond that if one was to look at things with baby eyes, one would become a theist."
- another opinion statement with no strong supporting arguments or proof.

"Now you're taking a side."
- try and prove what i said there isn't correct.

"For example if one would observe the world with these eyes, one would see that everything is created by something else so it follows that this world had a creator."
- Or one would see that there is what we have now (universe), how things were before that, and how things were before that, ad infinitum until we come to a fork in the road which is "god started it all" or "something else did". the answer is, WE DON'T KNOW YET.

seriously, is this a joke? am i being trolled here? i came on this site hoping for a delightful battle of intellects from opposing perspectives, instead i get something not much better than youtube-comments-banter.

here it is again. even more simplified. present strong cases and defeat the logic in the following:

militant
- "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause"
- not much we can do about this part, unless you can prove that being active and aggressive in support of a cause is a bad thing.

ignostic
- the word "god" means many things. to discuss the existence of "god" we must clarify which "god" we're talking about.
- to defeat this, prove to me that the word "god" can only mean one god and one god only. you must prove why it's wrong to put all other supernatural deities under the term "god(s)".

weak agnostic
- does god exist? we don't know but there is always a chance we might know in the future.
- to defeat this, prove definitively that there is or is not a god. but if you concede that we don't know, you must then prove how it's not possible to come to know this.

agnostic atheism
- talking specifically of, for example, the christian god... he could exist but it's not likely.
- note: richard dawkins is an agnostic atheist. someone like him would say the above is so because there is simply not any concrete definitive evidence to support the existence of the christian god.
- to defeat this, prove why (in this case, the christian) god is very likely to exist, or simply that he does.
- or you can defeat this by attacking its logic. for example, why go agnostic atheist and lean toward the atheist side of agnosticism regarding a specific god? why not the theistic side of agnosticism, or stay neutrally weak agnostic?

and you seem to have the misconception that agnostic = atheist. so to clarify, these are the different types of agnosticism. agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist. one doesn't know but thinks god exists, one doesn't know but thinks god doesn't. gnostic theists and atheists are the ones that are concretely certain about their theism/atheism. there is also weak and strong agnosticism, WA basically being agnostic agnostic while SA are basically gnostic agnostic. i hope this clears things up.

now let's stop this childishness and get to the point. quick. only two more rounds and i expect you not to waste them again.
vardas0antras

Con

There's no way anyone will read this debate anyhow my opponent again made it difficult for me to respond by:
1. Disorganization:
I asked:
"Please put a title on your responses and be specific (very, very specific). "
Did my opponent improve ? No.
2. Conduct
Well, just read this:
"seriously, is this a joke? am i being trolled here? i came on this site hoping for a delightful battle of intellects from opposing perspectives, instead i get something not much better than youtube-comments-banter."

In any case Ill give my best shot:

"- I concede to you defeating those statements, however, not the "militant" part."
I only need to show flaws in your statement
-""Now I can't defend the teachings of Islam but I can defend Christian ideology."
- go on?"
There's nothing for me to defend, you show me something I should defend. From there I prove you wrong.
"- You still needed an organized belief system to tell you that"
No, I don't need anyone to tell me that.
"An atheist would contend that atheism wouldn't teach, people would."
Im afraid people generally speaking are materialistic and not altruistic ; secular kids learn from the media . Even if presumingly they are - there is no reason to assume that an atheist would be as devote as an theist.
-"- One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they 'know'."
What does know what one experiences.
-" we both have biased opinions" I don't
-" another opinion statement with no strong supporting arguments or proof." He provided no refutation.
-"- try and prove what i said there isn't correct." Its not what I am supposed to do...Did you admit that you're taking a side.
-" 'god started it all' or 'something else did' " Obviously the one with baby eyes would take the more likely one as truth (God) from his perspective.
Debate Round No. 4
AznMagic

Pro

i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i posted my views of M.I.W.A.A. and outlined what exactly it was. Your job as the opponent was to attack its logic and flaws, present your side of the argument (opposing views), and provide evidence supporting your side.

Ideally, that would happen, then I would continue on to defend my side of the debate, responding to the arguments and evidence you would have given to oppose my original post. Then we would continue, responding to each others' arguments and evidence with more of our own.

So far, none of that has happened. In accepting this debate, you've done nothing but waste my time, and have uselessly occupied a position that would've been much better suited to someone that would have taken this seriously. Instead you've turned this into another typical "internet argument". Your first response was slightly promising then it quickly became a joke. I honestly want to have a serious, intellectual debate about this so if you'd still be interested i that, or if there are any other takers, message me and we can continue elsewhere.

Seriously, why come here wasting both of our time if you're not gunna take this seriously? You seem to have an attitude problem, not to mention the inability to read, or to present anything with logic or evidence or facts. Things like "Obviously the one with baby eyes would take the more likely one as truth (God) from his perspective." is a statement with NOTHING to support it. No supporting arguments, no logic, no facts, no evidence... nothing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I only need to show flaws in your statement"
- and you have yet to.
"There's nothing for me to defend, you show me something I should defend. From there I prove you wrong."
- read my previous posts^
"No, I don't need anyone to tell me that."
- so you admit religion isn't necessary at all for morality.
"Im afraid people generally speaking are materialistic and not altruistic ; secular kids learn from the media . Even if presumingly they are - there is no reason to assume that an atheist would be as devote as an theist."
- are materialistic... because? i agree they are, but again you're not using any supporting arguments or evidence. same can be said of the statement that secular kids learn from the media.
"What does know what one experiences."
- and your english is beginning to quickly break down. i'll assume that meant 'what does one know about what one experiences'? or maybe 'what do you know aboutwhat one experiences'? in either case or another, how is this in any way refuting any of my original philosophies?
"" we both have biased opinions" I don't"
- your last sentence is definitive proof that at the very least, YOU do.
"He provided no refutation."
- neither did you.
"Its not what I am supposed to do...Did you admit that you're taking a side."
- very nice argument there. clap... clap... clap... facepalm.

i await your final "response".

i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it.
i'll even have this copy pasted to the top so i can be sure you won't skip this part when you fail to read my entire post, yet again.
vardas0antras

Con

"i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it." Then all you did was quote and respond, the responses need to be under a title !

"I honestly want to have a serious, intellectual debate about this so if you'd still be interested i that, or if there are any other takers, message me and we can continue elsewhere." I am afraid that your unspecific and disorganized nature has taken away my zeal.

"You seem to have an attitude problem, "
You said:
"seriously, is this a joke? am i being trolled here? i came on this site hoping for a delightful battle of intellects from opposing perspectives, instead i get something not much better than youtube-comments-banter."
And you gave an obvious biased vote:
http://www.debate.org...

" Things like "Obviously the one with baby eyes would take the more likely one as truth (God) from his perspective." is a statement with NOTHING to support it." That should go into the list above. Anyhow I did provide evidence:
"People speak of God and all things seem to be created - Argument (Atheism) = *Buzz* try again
People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Argument (Theism) = *Buzz* try again
People speak of God and all things seem to be created + Nothing = Theism, you won !!!"
I elaborate on this in Round 3, yes round 3, you had two rounds to respond.

"- and you have yet to."
You have already conceded two things to be incorrect:
"Two things which I have refuted:
'You should believe what I believe, because I'm more right than you'
'And your certainty on religions, or atheism, or others, is hurting people' "

"There's nothing for me to defend, you show me something I should defend. From there I prove you wrong.
- read my previous posts^"
You mean that one which didn't mention even one teaching from the Bible? There's nothing to defend.

"- so you admit religion isn't necessary at all for morality."
My argument is and was that religion promotes morality.

"are materialistic... because? i agree they are, but again you're not using any supporting arguments or evidence. same can be said of the statement that secular kids learn from the media."
I win since you agreed. Also media does promote immorality:
http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)

"and your english is beginning to quickly break down"
Well, you say "i" instead of "I" but yes I am rushing (whose fault it is, by now I don't care)

"how is this in any way refuting any of my original philosophies?"
We all tend to forget things, this is what you said:
"- One can be certain about something. That doesn't mean they 'know'."

""Its not what I am supposed to do...Did you admit that you're taking a side."
- very nice argument there. clap... clap... clap... facepalm."
Now you're also the victim of your own disorganization. My whole refutation was that one is taking an atheistic side
before one becomes a "weak agnostic". This doesn't make sense on its own but I have explained everything in round 3. So now you're admitting your defeat ? Swell.

"i suggest you take hint from my previous post, scroll down to where i clearly outline my original philosophies and what would be acceptable and required for me to concede defeat, and do it."
1. "i clearly outline my original philosophies " Yes but then your responses to what I said are all over the place and well, it becomes a mess as we can observe from this debate. It also creates needles difficulty for me plus you being unspecific.
2. "required for me to concede defeat, and do it" You don't deserve that amount of effort. Anyhow, I have won the debate not because you're not conceding defeat but because according to the way you set up this debate - all I need to do is point out one flaw ; I have pointed out many.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
RFD

Pro was insulting in round and comment section.
Grammar/Spelling was good
Convincing arguments goes to con b/c pro did not fulfill burden
Sources is tie
Posted by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
it's pretty clear you never wanted to debate in the first place. why even bother? this entire "debate" is pointless. all the votes are pointless. if u wanna keep up shenanigans like this i suggest you go check out 4chan, more suited to your style.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Says the guy who admitted defeat "i've already done enough laughing and facepalming at you" oh and you also voted for yourself. This is a circus and im outta here though I will come back when you mess up your second debate.
Posted by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
i've already done enough laughing and facepalming at you. seriously, stop trolling.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
" if u change ur mind and ur willing to do so, let me kno and we can start fresh elsewhere. but i kinda doubt this seeing as how you've acted so far."
Just observe your next debate.... I will laugh
Posted by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
i fail to see how anyone could win in a debate that never got started. stop trolling man. unlike you, i'm actually interested in having intelligent debates bout this kinda stuff. i joined this site just to get some refreshing challenges to my philosophies and possibly have them revised (yay learning experience). if u change ur mind and ur willing to do so, let me kno and we can start fresh elsewhere. but i kinda doubt this seeing as how you've acted so far.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"everything you've said has nothing backing them up"
Hypothetically, if we were to assume that this is true though its not and I can't fathom how one would think otherwise. How does that change that you admitted your own flaws ? You lose even if ungraciously.
Posted by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
i think this became absolutely pointless a long time ago. stop trolling.
Posted by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
everything you've said has nothing backing them up. stop trolling.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"ur a joke man."
And you just voted for yourself....Wow
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
AznMagicvardas0antrasTied
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 RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
AznMagicvardas0antrasTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Jonat 6 years ago
Jonat
AznMagicvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by AznMagic 6 years ago
AznMagic
AznMagicvardas0antrasTied
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