The Instigator
jewgirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jibby_page
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

atheism vs. agnosticism

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,514 times Debate No: 18681
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (9)

 

jewgirl

Pro

Resolved: The Agnostic approach is superior to that of the atheistic approach.
Jibby_page

Con

Hi there. Agnosticism is frankly, in my humble opinion, uncertainty. Declaring we will never know about the existence of a higher power. With it, comes the convenient added thought that there MAY be something of the nature of a higher power.
I have three main points of argument. I will present them first with reference to Agnosticism and second with reference to Atheism.

Agnosticism:
1) My first point is that Agnosticism is a diplomatic stance. Neither here nor there. Lacking individual, original opinion. To keep everyone and their opinion satisfied, sacrificing your own. The proverbial cat on the wall.
2) My second point is that it is an easy, almost a lazy way out. Instead of researching in depth trying to find The truth, not to mention reflecting spiritually on the concept of God around one and within oneself, it is accepting that we humans are not capable of finding out whether or not God exists. A defeatist attitude, to say the least.
3) My third and final point is that there is no point to the whole belief of Agnosticism. And I'll tell you why. Assuming we DO uncover this elusive secret someday, agnosticism would be totally disproved. And please do not find fault with my belief that we shall find the answer to the question of God's existence. I am only human. And to believe is human.

Atheism:
1)Atheism takes a firm stance on the existence God. 'There is no such thing', is the definite, clear belief, full of clarity.
2)Atheism is not diplomatic. It picks a side, thereby, very much unlike Agnosticism, retaining something very, very valuable- an identity.
3)And when THE answer is revealed, which I believe will certainly happen, Atheism has a 50% chance of being right. That's better than the 0% Agnosticism has anyway.

I urge the readers for a con vote. Thanks for your time.
Debate Round No. 1
jewgirl

Pro

1)Your 1st point is not a logical argument. what is wrong with being diplomatic or uncertain.

2)with regards 2 your second point. Your claim that its a lazy way out is baseless.
Furthermore I believe it makes more since to say the following, hundreds of geniuses on each side have been arguing for 100s of years these people are smarter then you and I so why even bother thinking about it people smarter than you say differently so why should you go with your opinion over theirs. This makes more since to me than to say I know that all these brilliant theologians who have been working on this 4 100s of years are wrong.

3)copied from wikipedia:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claim especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims unknown or unknowable.

I am referring to the position that it is unknown not unknown. Thus point 3 goes down the tube. (It wasn't much of a point any way.)

certainty is only good when it is really certain but as I showed in bullet 2 this is not the case.
Jibby_page

Con

My dear opponent has brought out a fact, which I do not want to make mockery out of. Yet, as required by the rules of the debate, I have to present my argument.
Quoting her, (I am merely quoting, voters, please do not count the mistakes in grammar and spelling against me)
"hundreds of geniuses on each side have been arguing for 100s of years these people are smarter then you and I so why even bother thinking about it people smarter than you say differently so why should you go with your opinion over theirs. This makes more since to me than to say I know that all these brilliant theologians who have been working on this 4 100s of years are wrong."

My point. No one is born with an estimate of how smart one is, or how smart one can be. Agreed? But my opponent thinks else wise. She has an accurate idea of how smart she is and questionably, how smart I am. According to her, our level of smartness is much less than, and yes, I quote again, reluctantly, "all these brilliant theologians".
My perception of her mindset is one stemming out of profound concern. It seems to me, that the only reason my worthy opponent is speaking out in favor of Agnosticism, is that there have been several theologists who have been debating over this issue through the centuries. "And if they haven't reached a definite conclusion, why should I? Agnosticism is the thing for me." seems to be her pitiable thought process. Defeatist, to say the least.
I urge my opponent to truly believe in what she chooses to believe, and not to follow something blindly just because she presumes her mental faculties to be inferior to someone else, no matter how learned he or she is.
Thank you again for your time. All sarcasm is in good humor and is to be taken in good competitive spirit.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tBoonePickens 5 years ago
tBoonePickens
Hint:

Atheist/Theist is a statement of BELIEF. Atheists believe that there is no God; theists believe that there is a God.

Agnostic/Gnostic is a statement of KNOWLEDGE. Gnostics know that there is a God; agnostics do not know if there is God.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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: Neither one of these debators apparently knows that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They are answers to two different questions. One can be an agnostic atheist (in fact, almost every single atheist is also agnostic). One can also be an agnostic theist. There is no point to this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither really put forth a solid argument, yet the burden was on Pro to do just that.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: same as below
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points weren't very convincing; jewgirl should have pointed out that uncertainty might not be a necessarily bad characteristic of agnoticism, but her rebuttal seemed weak...Con noted, in a sarcastic spirit, how jewgirl seemed to have suddenly ascertain both his and her intelligences in comparison to the theologians ("No one is born with an estimate of how smart one is, or how smart one can be....")
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed great weaknesses in Pro's argument. Pro also decided not to respond to many of Con's arguments on the assumption that they were "baseless".
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While there were many flaws to Cons argument, Pro was unable to capitalize on them or defend her position.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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: Neither side provided any convincing arguments at all.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made an eloquent yet weak argument. All of his points were subjective and baseless, as Pro pointed out. Pro however had burden of proof, and only negated Con's arguments, never providing proof to her own. In that respect, neither contender DESERVES to win arguments, but I will give arguments to Con anyway for at least trying somewhat to support his case. This was not a debate.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
jewgirlJibby_pageTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A interesting debate with a very good refutation by Con. Pro's lack of care with grammar made points hard to follow.