The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,299 times Debate No: 25421
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (2)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

My opponent can define anything except neutral agnosticism.

If you disagree with my definition. do not try to debate it in comments. Do not try to ppose it in round 1. Just do not accept the debate.

Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence.

Thank you to my opponent. You shall debate all beliefs other than neutral agnosticism. That is end of it all. Do the hulahoop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wiploc

Con

All right then!
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

The understanding of knowledge originates back to the ancient greeks of the times where men raping women was considered more moral than homosexuality. Back then God was a mystery. We had Homer, followed by Socrates, him by Plato... you get my drift. Each had a slmilar view of the God. The Gods were all powerful entity that made men to think, to overpower, to rule. Women were less than dogs back then. It was the Gods' wish to make them weaker, to make them vulnerable. If you were ugly, hairy or fat by nature you weren't even kept alive. As of rhte men, only the strong buff ones survived, especially in the spartan societies of the more modern greek (modern compred to the time of Plato). In Sparta there was a focus on the God of war, Ares. Whereas in Athens they focused on the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill, Athena. To expand on the God of the Spartans' focus, he embodied the physical valor necessary for success in war, he was a dangerous force, "overwhelming, insatiable in battle, destructive, and man-slaughtering."[1] Considering the the Spartans won almost all wars between Athens and Sparta, the so called 'rational theist' may conclude that clearly Ares was a ttrue God whose power had been proven. However, this is logically flawed since actually the spartans used a lot of strategy in war, which is the philosophy of Athena (the Goddess of the strategy fo war) as well as physical power. They in fact were fighting worshippers of the Goddess whose philosophy they were living by.

This is where the issue of belief comes in, humans have shown from ancient civilisations that beliefs are only superficial. Pharoahs claimed to have many gods, worshipping hte dung beetle for its humble manner of clearing away the excretiont that they would rather not see or deal with. Yet the pharoah was known to rape many women against their will (Would god want this?). THe muslim societies of the middle east had had PREBUSESCENT GIRLS 'married' to men aged 40. Now, you might clal it marriage but that little girl is basically raped daily, or even twice a day if he is horny enough. It is disgusting, horrible but if Allah says that men can have many wives, can do to those wives as he wishes as logn as he sotps other men hurting or perving her up then it's ok? NO! SREW THE RELIGION! That's where morality and religion are so different, where the muslim God is such a dirty fellow that we shouldn't care for the theory of such a God!!! The Christian God said that slavery of women and rape it is all ok!!!! But said homosexuality should mean you get stoned?!!! He's rather a rapist slave owner than a gay?!!! The Christian God is such a dirty fellow. The Jews have flaws too, they are allowed to get drunk, do drugs and should grow ugly beards but can't have sex (GOD MADE US BUILT FOR SEX) This is the fundamental issue with religion. It states to fight what God made us to be. If there were God then he made Sadam hussein rape girls, made Osama Bin Laden bomb the US of A and made Hitler kill Jews. It is the way of the God he is ALL POWERFUL, thus has the power to make the atoms that make up the brain decide anything! (evidence of this power is that he made humans originally by arranging atoms and chemicals to suit his predetermined image to come to reality, thus it is clear that god is able to influence natural processes to make anything real by rearranging atoms and/or chemicals and thus can alter the brain at any time he wishes, otherwise why would anyone be religious or atheist?\

The issue with atheis is that they believe that there is no God simply because believing in God requires unqualified faith, however what qualifying evidence is there in believing there is NO God AT ALL?? None. Atheists think they are smarter and call agnostics weak atheists, but we are totally different breed of philosophers we doubt either way because to deny god is to be as idiotic as to claim to knwo there is one.
Sources:
[1] Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 169
wiploc

Con

Thanks to Pro for this interesting topic, and to DDO for hosting, and of course to readers, voters, and commenters.

What exactly is the resolution that Pro undertook to prove? His thesis sentence: "Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence."

If we set aside the name he gives his theory, and his parenthetical comment, we get this: "No degree of certainty can be achieved without physical evidence."

One could argue that there is ambiguity as to what was meant by the word "physical," and by the phrase, "No degree of certainty." But it seems to me that Pro's meaning is clear. His claim comes to this:

Resolved: All knowledge is empirically based: there is no such thing as a priori knowledge.

I think that's a fair clarification of what Pro wrote. If I misunderstand, I look for his correction; I certainly don't mean to misrepresent.

Is it true that all knowledge is empirical? Obviously not.

First, the assertion is self-refuting. How would one attempt to support such a claim? To the extent that the claim is true, one would have to support it empirically, examining one item of knowledge after another, going, "Nope, this isn't a priori. Nope, this isn't a priori. This one isn't a priori either. And here's yet another piece of knowledge that isn't a priori," forever. One could never know the resolution to be true in that way.

Second, we have examples of a priori knowledge, so the resolution is patently false. Wikipedia says, "Examples of a priori propositions include:

  • "All bachelors are unmarried."
  • "7 + 5 = 12."

The justification of these propositions does not depend upon experience: One does not need to consult experience to determine whether all bachelors are unmarried, or whether 7 + 5 = 12." [1]

The Pythagorean theorem is another example. Farmers used 3-4-5 triangles to make square corners for their fields. That derived from empiricism. ("Seems pretty close to a right angle to me. Also, it seemed pretty accurate when I did it yesterday. A three-four-five triangle will probably still seem like it has a right angle tomorrow.") But that empirical information inspired Pythagoras to strive for actual proof. He wanted to know. So using a priori methods, he proved for a fact that 3-4-5 triangles have right angles. It's not just a matter of "within measurable tolerances." It's not a matter of empiricism.

Or look at Euclid. Your geometry teacher never set you to examining a bushel of parallel lines to see how many of them touch. No, that whole field of knowledge is non-empirical.

Clearly, the resolution is false.

Vote Con.

Now let us apply the resolution to gods. Pro said, "no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence." [emphasis added.] So we should visit the question of whether non-empirical knowledge of gods is possible.

Obviously it is. Consider this statement: "Either Jehovah exists, or Jehovah doesn't exist." That is a true statement about a god, and it is a statement that does not depend upon empiricism.

Clearly, the resolution is false.

Vote Con.

===

Note: I repudiate Pro's historical claims. That is, I do not by my silence endorse, countenence, or condone, for instance, Con's implied belief that the ancient Greeks thought homosexuality was bad (but just not as bad as raping women).

===

[1] Wikipedia: " Analytic–synthetic distinction" http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

I stated the Greeks though rape was LESS BAD than homosexuality.

Anyway. This is the difference between atheism and agnosticism that my opponent is failing to comprehend.


A neutral agnostic needn't prove that there is or there isn't a god since we neither claim there to be, or not to be one, in existence.

7+5=12 can be proven because: -
  • 12-7=5
  • 12-5=7
  • 10+14=24 and (10/2) + (14/2) = 24/2
  • also because x*(5+7)=x*12

There are many proofs of the math equation.

That all bachelors are single is an untrue statement because the definition of a bachelor is a man who is not and has never been married.[1] However one can not ever have married but be single (how do you think teen pregnancy happens).

Neutral agnosticism asserts nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck it up.

Now you say this is self contradictory because it needs to be proven.

Agnosticism is not self contradictory, it is an axiom.

Axiom: an accepted statement or proposition regarded as being self-evidently true.[2]

Thus in a court of law, it is self evidently true that the judge cannot sentence the accused to prison if he/she has had no evidence to support the prosecutor's case. He/she is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is a fundamental axiom of all activities and day-to-day decision making. If your friend says your wife cheated on you, you would immediately dump her. You will make your friend prove it, and perhaps end up ditching your friend. Without the theory of agnosticism the human society would be just as idiotic as any other species, what separates us is the innate ability to reason via communication, and the communication is used to explain theories that are then proven by evidence.


I shall repeat the truth: Agnosticism is not the denial of God, nor the belief in no God, nor the doubt in (a) god(s), it is merely the axiom that nothing can be known (even if there is or is not a god) without proof in the form of physical evidence of some kind, the physical proof can represent a mental truth (in the cases of math and philosophy) However most of the time it will simply be proof of somehting being true, such as God's existence. This is why atheists and neutral agnostics are a different breed of theologists; Atheists doubt God simply because we have no proof there is one. Neutral agnostics neither doubt God, nor doubt there being no god, they simply believe that both shall be considered unknown and thus no conclusion can be drawn until evidence is given, untilt hat time we should neither doubt God(s) nor assert that there is one. We should simply believe that evidence is the source of all truth for this is an AXIOM!!!!!!!!!

Sources:
[1] http://www.wordreference.com...;
[2] http://www.wordreference.com...

wiploc

Con

The Resolution:

Pro undertook to prove that "no degree of certainty ... can be achieved without physical evidence."

I rephrased that, for clarification's sake, as, "All knowledge is empirically based: there is no such thing as a priori knowledge."

Pro has rephrased again, but essentially confirmed: "nothing can be known ... without proof in the form of physical evidence of some kind."

So we are agreed on what Pro has to prove.

Any example of knowledge that is not empirically based, that is not based on physical evidence, will serve as a defeater, disproving the resolution.


An example of non-physical knowledge: the Pythagorean theorem.

I offered the Pythagorean theorem as an example of such knowledge. Empirically, we could only demonstrate that 3-4-5 triangles have right angles approximately. It was proven only within our ability to measure. But Pythagoras demonstrated the truth a priori, without relying on physical evidence.

So, some knowledge isn't based on physical evidence. Note that Pro dropped this argument, effectively conceding it.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

Vote Con.

An example of non-physical knowledge: an equation.

I offered another example of non-empirical knowledge: the equation 7+5=12. We know that based on logic, not on experience. This knowledge is a priori, not a posteriori.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

And Con concedes that this is knowledge. He stipulates that there are "many proofs" of the truth of this equation. He gives examples, and the examples are non-physical. They are not based on physics or experience or empiricism, but rather on a priori logic.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

Vote Con.

A stipulated example of non-physical knowledge:

Pro wrote, "... nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck (sic) it up." I stipulate the truth of this statement. We are therefore agreed that this is a truth. But, is this truth based on physical knowledge? No, we reasoned it out. It is a priori knowledge, not based on physics.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

Vote Con.


A definitional example of non-physical knowledge:

By definition, there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Incomprehensibly, Pro disagrees. (Not only is it incomprehensible that he disagrees, but his explanation of why he disagrees is also incomprehensible. Read it a dozen times; it will still be opaque.) We know there are no married bachelors. We didn't learn this by taking a survey of bachelors to see whether any are married (empirical or physical evidence) but rather we know this because of the definition of the word "bachelor." This proof is a priori, non-empirical, non-physical.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

Vote Con.

An attempt to evade the burden of proof:

Pro makes a peculiar move: After starting this debate in order to prove the truth of the resolution, he suddenly changes his mind, declaring that he doesn't have to prove it because it is "an axiom."

He no longer wants his resolution to be challenged. I should just accept it as a given. But then what would we have left to argue about? What would we debate?

No, Pro offered to prove that all knowledge is based on physical evidence, and I intend to hold him to that.

Pro's burden is to prove the resolution. That he cannot do so is evidenced by his attempt to evade this burden of proof, which can be viewed as a kind of concession.

Therefore, the resolution is defeated.

Vote Con.

Conduct:

I suggest that voters give me the conduct point because of Pro's reliance on screaming in all caps and gross fonts. Certainly if he continues this abuse, he'll have earned the loss of conduct points.

Vote conduct for Con.

Spelling and Grammar:

Pro's spelling is quite careless. Many of his sentences are impossible to untangle.

Vote S&G for Con.

Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

Hihs arguments do not support any religious outlook. Only discuss logic itself. I believe that my point still stands.
wiploc

Con

The Resolution:

Pro undertook to prove that all knowledge is based on physical evidence, that anything not based on physical evidence is not knowledge. That resolution is obviously false. It must be false in any universe containing deductive logic.

Four Unchallenged Examples:

I gave four examples of knowledge that is not based on physical evidence.

  • The Pythagorean theorem.
  • Equations.
  • The principle that we shouldn't assert things without justifying reasons.
  • The fact that bachelors are unmarried.

These are truths, but none of them is based on physical evidence. Thus, they destroy the plausibility of the resolution. The resolution is defeated.

Pro didn't try to refute any of those fatal counter-examples. He dropped those arguments, effectively conceding that they refute his resolution.

The resolution, therefore, is refuted.

Vote Con.

Conduct:

Pro has moderated his visual tone. Consider rewarding this improved behavior by not voting points for conduct.

Spelling and Grammar:

Pro's most recent post is only two lines long, but still shot through with errors.

Pro's Axiom Gambit:

At one point, Pro tried to duck the burden of proof by declaring his resolution to be an axiom. I shouldn't try to refute it, because it wasn't an assertion, it was an axiom.

That's silly. If you start a debate to prove an assertion, you can't win the debate by suddenly declaring, "Oh, and now my resolution is an axiom." That's not even a debate-specific tactic. One could use it in any debate, without regard to topic. And responders could use the same tactic: "You can't dispute my refutation, because I'm declaring it to be an axiom."

This move was without virtue. On the scales of persuasion, it weighs zero.

Pro's New Gambit:

Pro complains that I argued about logic rather than religion.

But Pro's resolution is about logic. It mentions religion, yes, but the resolution is that all knowledge is based on physical evidence. It's true that he says, "especially regarding God," but it is entirely false that, as he now implies, he said "only regarding God."

Had he said, "Resolved: Two plus two equals five, especially in Oklahoma," one wouldn't have to go to Oklahoma to refute him. Any proof that two plus two equals four would suffice. There would be no point in mentioning Oklahoma.

And in this case, any proof of knowledge not based on physical evidence will suffice. It doesn't have to be knowledge about god. Any a priori knowledge suffices to refute the claim that all knowledge is a posteriori.

Religious Knowledge Without Physical Evidence:

But let's indulge Pro anyway. Let's offer more examples of knowledge that isn't based on physical evidence, and this time let's make it knowledge about god.

  • God either exists, or doesn't exist.
  • An omnipotent god would be able to defeat iron chariots.
  • If Jehovah were omniscient, then Adam and Eve couldn't have hidden from him in the garden.
  • It cannot be true in any obvious, logical, straightforward way that a god is both one god and three gods.
  • If Jehovah were omnipresent, then he wouldn't have needed to ride pillars of fire to get down from Heaven.
  • An omnipotent god could cause a baby to be born of a virgin.
  • An omnipotent god could make a worldwide flood by magic, and could make the water go away after by magic.
  • No god could be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

These are all obviously true statements. And they are all about gods. And they none of them depend upon physical evidence.

Therefore, the resolution is refuted.

Note that you don't have to agree with any particular one of these examples. While they are all obviously correct, you need only accept one of them. If any one of them is knowledge about god, then (since none of them are based on physical evidence) the resolution is refuted.

Self-Refuting Resolution.

In fact, even if you don't accept any of the above resolutions about god, it should be obvious that it is possible in principle to make true statements about god that are not based on physics. Thus, the resolution is refuted.

But, suppose, for the sake of argument, that we pretended that we couldn't know anything about god without physical evidence. In that case, we would have to reject the resolution.

Why? Because there is no physical evidence that the resolution is true. There is no physical evidence that we can't know anything about god without physical evidence.

So, if the resolution is true, then it is false.

The resolution refutes itself.

Conclusion:

Pro undertook to prove that no knowledge exists that isn't based on physical evidence.

That resolution is obviously false. It cannot possibly be true in a universe containing deductive logic.

The resolution cannot be true since it contradicts itself.

I don't have the burden of proof, but I have given examples of knowledge that isn't based on physical evidence. Thus, I have absolutely proven the resolution to be false.

Therefore, the resolution is refuted.

Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

My resolution is not 'that all knowledge is physically based'. In fact, if one could read, they would see it is 'Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!' I have seen no reason not to be 100% agnostic upon god and thus stand strong in my view.

Vote pro.
wiploc

Con

Late Switcheroo!

Trying to change the debate topic in round 5?

Pro now claims that the title of the debate is the resolution. He no longer wants to prove that "no degree of certainty, especially regarding god, can be achieved without physical evidence." No, now he wants to prove that "Neutral agnosticism versus all beliefs regarding god."

Pretty funny, since "Neutral agnosticism versus all beliefs regarding god" is not an assertion. It cannot be attacked or defended. It is not debatable. It is not a resolution. It is a title.

But, while we're on the subject, what is "neutral agnosticism" anyway. It is, according to Pro's opening post, the theory that "no degree of certainty, especially regarding god, can be achieved without physical evidence." Now that can be debated. And, in earlier rounds of this debate, Pro attempted to debate it. He said things like, "Neutral agnosticism asserts nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck it up." So, up to this point, Pro has defended the mutually agreed topic of this debate, whether we can have knowledge without physical evidence.

Misbehavior:

It is unfair of Pro to try to change the resolution in the final round of the debate. Cheating.

It was unfair of Pro to try to escape his burden of proof by declaring his resolution to be an unchallengable axiom. Cheating.

Pro behaved badly by using shouting-sized fonts in the early rounds.

Pro is uncivil now by saying I would agree that his title is the resolution "if one could read."

I'm going to block him, so that I can't accidentally get into another debate with him. And I recommend that readers vote conduct points against him. Thus encourage him towards greater civility.

Vote conduct points to Con.

Unchallenged Defeaters:

Pro undertook to prove that no knowledge exists without physical proof. I offered him twelve instances of knowledge without physical proof. Pro didn't offer physical proof for any of these known facts. Nor did he, with one exception challenge the fact that these statements are knowledge. The single exception is the fact that bachelors are unmarried. Pro doesn't believe that bachelors are unmarried, but you all know this for a truth.

So, Pro has dropped eleven out of twelve lines of argument. He has effectively conceded that, in eleven instances, knowledge exists without physical evidence.

Pro's resolution has been defeated eleven times. One time would have sufficed, for Pro undertook to prove that all knowledge requires physical evidence.

Vote Con.

Burden of Proof:

Pro undertook to prove the resolution that all knowledge requires physical evidence. I offered him repeated chances to show us the physical evidence that all knowledge requires physical evidence. After all, if he's right that we know the resolution to be true, then the resolution must have physical evidence. If the resolution is true, and if Pro doesn't provide the physical evidence, then he has not supported the resolution. He has not met the burden of proof.

Since Pro had the burden of proof. And since Pro never suplied the support for his claim that he insists is necessary for any claim, it follows that the resolution fails.

Vote Con.

Spelling and Grammar:

Pro's posts are full of errors profound enough to sometimes render him difficult, and sometimes impossible, to understand. His final post is better than some of the earlier ones, but, brief as it is, it still contains errors.

- In the first sentence, the single quotes should be double quotes if he was in America as opposed to the UK. But his profile shows him as Korean, so we can give him a pass on that issue.

- The period should be inside the final quotation mark. I happen to agree with McCormack's preference for putting punctuation outside the quotation marks if it is not part of the original quotation. That's non-standard, but I wouldn't say anything against it. However, in this case, since Pro fabricated the rest of the quotation, he can make no claim that the period should be segregated from the rest.

- Pro used quotation marks around a paraphrase. This is clearly error. If he uses quote marks, he should quote accurately.

- In his second sentence, Pro's pronoun usage is inconsistent. If he starts with "one," he shouldn't arbitrarily switch to "they."

- In his third sentence, he ommitted a necessary comma after "god."

Pro's other posts are filled with such errors, oftentimes impeding comprehension.

Vote S&G to Con.

Conclusion:

Pro had the burden of proof, but he never met that burden. Con didn't have the burden of proof but nonetheless absolutely proved the resolution to be false. These disproofs of the resolution were never challenged.

Vote Con.

-

Pro's spelling and grammar was distractingly poor.

Vote S&G to Con.

-

Pro was repeatedly uncivil and unsportsmanlike.

Vote conduct to Con.


Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
Rationalmadmans posts really did hurt my eyes.
Posted by Manbearpanda 5 years ago
Manbearpanda
This should be obvious. If positive atheists do not lack the belief that at least one god exists, then they must believe that at least one god exists. Never heard of a true dichotomy? QED.

Stop making idiotic assertions. Reported for libel yet again.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I have REPEATEDLY asked you to explain yourself, yet you never do. Why don't you do so now. Please, explain your reasoning. Back up your assertions.
Posted by Manbearpanda 5 years ago
Manbearpanda
That's not a non sequitur (not 'non-sequiter'); it is not my fault that your beliefs are self-contradictory, nor is it my fault that you don't understand what 'partial' means. Stop digging and admit that you lied. Grow up.

In future, don't call, "non sequitur" just because you don't understand why my reasoning is completely sound. If you fail to understand, you can politely ask me to explain myself, rather than making a fool of yourself by asserting that I'm wrong, and I might be nice enough to humour you.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
@ManBearPanda

"So, you're denying saying that my definition was a partial definition. Why, then, are you arguing with me?"

When did I say that? Stop making things up!

"You said that 'the lack of a belief in at least one god' did not cover the beliefs of positive atheists. By your own illogic, some positive atheists do believe in at least one god. Idiot."

Nice non-sequiter!
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
What a handsome response, muzebreak. Thanks so much.
Posted by muzebreak 5 years ago
muzebreak
Wiploc,

Your response is reasonable and consise. I concede that I was hasty in my comment and should have paid more attention to what you had actually written.

I saw you substituting empericism for acceptance of solely physical evidencde and it kinda annoyed me.
But the points assuredly go to you in this round :) sorry if I seemed rude.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
muzebreak wrote:
: Seems to me that wiploc is using a equivication fallacy between the acceptance of solely physical
: evidence, and empiricism.

He's the one who insisted that the only evidence that counts is physical. I generously offered to let him the broader word "empirical," but he rejected it. So, yes, I did alternate, but not unfairly. Sometimes I was pointing out that his argument would fail even if we were using the broader word; other times I was pointing out how silly his actual argument was.

: I would also like to see you define any number without using empiricism, or even know the concept
: of numbers.

Granted.

Note however, that _Pro did not make that argument_ so I didn't have occasion to refute it within the debate.

Note also that some knowledge is based on deduction rather than induction. Deduction has added to our store of knowledge, even though it didn't come first. Pro's claim is that _all_ knowledge is based on physical evidence.

: Without sense's we would know nothing, so how can you claim anything supercedes empericism?

Supercedes? I never claimed that. Pro claimed that _all_ knowledge is based on physical evidence, and you know that isn't true.

: 2+2=4 and we know this because we haved defined two, but how can you define two without first seeing two of something? How can you define addition without first seeing things combined?

: As to your contention of pythagoras using a priori to confirm the theorm: How is it that pythagoras first noticed
: this phenomenom, and how is it that he used nothing but a priori to confirm this theory?

He did a geometrical proof, an exercise in a priori logic.
Posted by muzebreak 5 years ago
muzebreak
Seems to me that wiploc is using a equivication fallacy between the acceptance of solely physical evidence, and empiricism. I would also like to see you define any number without using empiricism, or even know the concept of numbers. Without sense's we would know nothing, so how can you claim anything supercedes empericism?

2+2=4 and we know this because we haved defined two, but how can you define two without first seeing two of something? How can you define addition without first seeing things combined?

As to your contention of pythagoras using a priori to confirm the theorm: How is it that pythagoras first noticed this phenomenom, and how is it that he used nothing but a priori to confirm this theory?
Also how does one attain the basis for any reasoning beyond empericism, that is can you give me a basel source of knowledge beyond the senses?
Posted by Manbearpanda 5 years ago
Manbearpanda
So, you're denying saying that my definition was a partial definition. Why, then, are you arguing with me? You said that 'the lack of a belief in at least one god' did not cover the beliefs of positive atheists. By your own illogic, some positive atheists do believe in at least one god. Idiot.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
RationalMadmanwiplocTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ryuu has the right idea, also, I am a huge fan of Kant (if anyone understands that i will love them forever)
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
RationalMadmanwiplocTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for radical and abrupt changes in font size switching resolution last minute. Spelling/grammar for spelling/grammatical errors. Arguments to Con for giving an example of non-physical knowledge.