Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Agnosticism is the only valid position in the

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:52:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!

I agree. There is no solid evidence to back up either side (atheistic/ theistic) in this debate. And since no absolute conclusion can be come to, the logical position would be agnosticism.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:35:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's a vote request thread in the main forum.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Born.Atheist
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:45:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Agnosticism really IS the best way to go.

People who feel that God may or may not exist, and are searching for answers, they are the open-minded ones. The will be the ones to find answers. Being fixed on one idea solely by belief (and evidence, too, for that matter) is stubborn.

"True wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."

Personally, I don't believe in the existence of God, but something similar to this ideology. I do see design in nature, so the possibility of a designer is likely. But, think about this:

Who really knows who the designer is?

Maybe the designer is a force, without a figure or emotions. It is not human-like. Like wind, water, earth, and fire, maybe design fits in with this.

Just a thought.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

It is impossible to know there is not a god so Atheism is the most "faith based" belief possible, and therefor the weakest.

Agnostic is a natural state of being. It is honest, and a strong state.

Theist is not much better than athiest but if God exists then there is the ability to know that. Once you know you are now Gnostic.

Gnostic is the strongest of all stances, god has shown someone his existence so from that point on, there is no more need for faith of the existence of god.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:16:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:09:25 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

It is impossible to know there is not a god so Atheism is the most "faith based" belief possible, and therefor the weakest.

Agnostic is a natural state of being. It is honest, and a strong state.

Theist is not much better than athiest but if God exists then there is the ability to know that. Once you know you are now Gnostic.

Gnostic is the strongest of all stances, god has shown someone his existence so from that point on, there is no more need for faith of the existence of god.

Your assertion of God's existence is still unfounded and purely based in faith with no reason at all. All gnostic theism is based purely on personal experience and is the most faith based position of all.

So-called hard atheism is partially based in faith, faith that the lack of evidence is evidence that there is no god or gods. It is more reasonable and rational than theism of any kind but still requires some faith since it is impossible to prove a negative.

Agnosticism is the most logical and reasonable stance, being aware that you do not know everything and willing to wait and see if any evidence one way or the other surfaces.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:26:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:09:25 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

It is impossible to know there is not a god so Atheism is the most "faith based" belief possible, and therefor the weakest.

Agnostic is a natural state of being. It is honest, and a strong state.

Theist is not much better than athiest but if God exists then there is the ability to know that. Once you know you are now Gnostic.

Gnostic is the strongest of all stances, god has shown someone his existence so from that point on, there is no more need for faith of the existence of god.

For me, the problem with Gnostic, is that in a debate, the viewpoint won't hold up, as its entirely subjective, and not based on objective evidence. Its a fine viewpoint to hold, but not the most objectively valid.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:40:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

Sure, being agnostic is a valid position when the god we are referring to is vague. There may be a desitic, pantheistic, panentheistic god out there, and "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable and valid answer.

In addition to this, it is also rational to disbelieve in some gods. EVERYONE does this. Consider Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Thor, Athena, Mars, etc, etc. I would guess a great majority disbelieve these gods ever existed. Atheism is a also valid position.

I'm sure our theist friends will claim theism is valid, and I will leave that to them to argue.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:21:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:26:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:09:25 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

It is impossible to know there is not a god so Atheism is the most "faith based" belief possible, and therefor the weakest.

Agnostic is a natural state of being. It is honest, and a strong state.

Theist is not much better than athiest but if God exists then there is the ability to know that. Once you know you are now Gnostic.

Gnostic is the strongest of all stances, god has shown someone his existence so from that point on, there is no more need for faith of the existence of god.

For me, the problem with Gnostic, is that in a debate, the viewpoint won't hold up, as its entirely subjective, and not based on objective evidence. Its a fine viewpoint to hold, but not the most objectively valid.

If God ever reveals himself to the whole world then we will all be Gnostic. The point is that an atheist can never have their position solidified.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:28:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:52:14 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!

I agree. There is no solid evidence to back up either side (atheistic/ theistic) in this debate. And since no absolute conclusion can be come to, the logical position would be agnosticism.

I'm not really trying to take a side in this thread, but it feels pretty bogus to say the logical position about root reality is to not know. How do you know you don't know? What's you basis for being sure about not knowing if there is no basis for knowing?

I certainly sympathise with not being certain about any particular thing, but that's different from declaring that you're certain that you have to be uncertain. There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.
This space for rent.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:28:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:21:39 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:26:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:09:25 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

It is impossible to know there is not a god so Atheism is the most "faith based" belief possible, and therefor the weakest.

Agnostic is a natural state of being. It is honest, and a strong state.

Theist is not much better than athiest but if God exists then there is the ability to know that. Once you know you are now Gnostic.

Gnostic is the strongest of all stances, god has shown someone his existence so from that point on, there is no more need for faith of the existence of god.

For me, the problem with Gnostic, is that in a debate, the viewpoint won't hold up, as its entirely subjective, and not based on objective evidence. Its a fine viewpoint to hold, but not the most objectively valid.

If God ever reveals himself to the whole world then we will all be Gnostic. The point is that an atheist can never have their position solidified.

The problem is, God (if there is one) hasn't done that. Since to one can know 100% the existence of god through objectivity, agnosticism has to be the only reasonable position.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:29:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:28:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:52:14 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!

I agree. There is no solid evidence to back up either side (atheistic/ theistic) in this debate. And since no absolute conclusion can be come to, the logical position would be agnosticism.

I'm not really trying to take a side in this thread, but it feels pretty bogus to say the logical position about root reality is to not know. How do you know you don't know? What's you basis for being sure about not knowing if there is no basis for knowing?

I certainly sympathise with not being certain about any particular thing, but that's different from declaring that you're certain that you have to be uncertain. There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.

The basis is that there is evidence (or a lack of) supporting the case. There is no objective evidence to either affirm or deny the existence of a God.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:30:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It depends entirely on the definition of the god being talked about. For some definitions, I would be agnostic. For most definitions, I am a strong atheist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I guess I'm making the unstated leap from "God" to "root cause" there, just to be clear. If God is not the root or first cause, then what is, and why wouldn't you call THAT cause God?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:02:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:29:43 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:28:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:52:14 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!

I agree. There is no solid evidence to back up either side (atheistic/ theistic) in this debate. And since no absolute conclusion can be come to, the logical position would be agnosticism.

I'm not really trying to take a side in this thread, but it feels pretty bogus to say the logical position about root reality is to not know. How do you know you don't know? What's you basis for being sure about not knowing if there is no basis for knowing?

I certainly sympathise with not being certain about any particular thing, but that's different from declaring that you're certain that you have to be uncertain. There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.

The basis is that there is evidence (or a lack of) supporting the case. There is no objective evidence to either affirm or deny the existence of a God.

The problem is that you're just assuming your abilities to deduce objective reality. So you're just replacing faith in God with faith in your own assumptions about yourself.
This space for rent.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:07:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:02:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:29:43 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:28:08 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:52:14 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:49:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an agnostic because no one can know for sure, at present, whether a deity does or doesn't exist somewhere. If it does I bet it is nothing like the deity described in the Bible, which has all the worst of human characteristics, but none of the best!

I agree. There is no solid evidence to back up either side (atheistic/ theistic) in this debate. And since no absolute conclusion can be come to, the logical position would be agnosticism.

I'm not really trying to take a side in this thread, but it feels pretty bogus to say the logical position about root reality is to not know. How do you know you don't know? What's you basis for being sure about not knowing if there is no basis for knowing?

I certainly sympathise with not being certain about any particular thing, but that's different from declaring that you're certain that you have to be uncertain. There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.

The basis is that there is evidence (or a lack of) supporting the case. There is no objective evidence to either affirm or deny the existence of a God.

The problem is that you're just assuming your abilities to deduce objective reality. So you're just replacing faith in God with faith in your own assumptions about yourself.

I'm not placing faith in my abilities to deduce reality. There is no scientific proof that goes either way. And by God, I mean an omnipotent, omniscient deity. Again, there is no universal consensus as to the existence of a God. One argument may say one thing, while another may say another thing. The point of agnosticism is to say that one cannot truly know and claim objectively whether there is a God or whether there isn't.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:11:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
...
The point of agnosticism is to say that one cannot truly know and claim objectively whether there is a God or whether there isn't.

And you're not presenting any basis for being able to make a claim about anything.

The theist can claim that his thought is valid because he was created by an intelligent agent. He is a calibrated instrument. You don't claim that, so what is your basis for claiming to be able to know ANYTHING about reality? Never mind knowing about God, how do you know any anything?
This space for rent.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:24:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:11:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
...
The point of agnosticism is to say that one cannot truly know and claim objectively whether there is a God or whether there isn't.

And you're not presenting any basis for being able to make a claim about anything.

The theist can claim that his thought is valid because he was created by an intelligent agent. He is a calibrated instrument. You don't claim that, so what is your basis for claiming to be able to know ANYTHING about reality? Never mind knowing about God, how do you know any anything?

I claiming I DON'T know about reality, and it is impossible for anyone to 100% know about reality. Now, if God rearranged the stars to say "I am here", and a booming voice echoed throughout the world, and everybody hears it, I will drop to my knees and know there is a God. But the thing is, that hasn't happened yet. You're argument that someone may think they were created by intelligent design is purely a subjective argument. Now, what do you claim about the existence of God?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:33:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can't think of nearly any subject where I say that I have to have 100% absolute certainty in order to make a decision.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:56:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:24:51 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:11:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
...
The point of agnosticism is to say that one cannot truly know and claim objectively whether there is a God or whether there isn't.

And you're not presenting any basis for being able to make a claim about anything.

The theist can claim that his thought is valid because he was created by an intelligent agent. He is a calibrated instrument. You don't claim that, so what is your basis for claiming to be able to know ANYTHING about reality? Never mind knowing about God, how do you know any anything?

I claiming I DON'T know about reality, and it is impossible for anyone to 100% know about reality. Now, if God rearranged the stars to say "I am here", and a booming voice echoed throughout the world, and everybody hears it, I will drop to my knees and know there is a God. But the thing is, that hasn't happened yet. You're argument that someone may think they were created by intelligent design is purely a subjective argument. Now, what do you claim about the existence of God?

I'm afraid you're totally missing my point. You're looking through the lens, I'm asking you to look at the lens.
This space for rent.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 12:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 11:56:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:24:51 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:11:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
...
The point of agnosticism is to say that one cannot truly know and claim objectively whether there is a God or whether there isn't.

And you're not presenting any basis for being able to make a claim about anything.

The theist can claim that his thought is valid because he was created by an intelligent agent. He is a calibrated instrument. You don't claim that, so what is your basis for claiming to be able to know ANYTHING about reality? Never mind knowing about God, how do you know any anything?

I claiming I DON'T know about reality, and it is impossible for anyone to 100% know about reality. Now, if God rearranged the stars to say "I am here", and a booming voice echoed throughout the world, and everybody hears it, I will drop to my knees and know there is a God. But the thing is, that hasn't happened yet. You're argument that someone may think they were created by intelligent design is purely a subjective argument. Now, what do you claim about the existence of God?

I'm afraid you're totally missing my point. You're looking through the lens, I'm asking you to look at the lens.

"You don't claim that, so what is your basis for claiming to be able to know ANYTHING about reality?"

I know the stars exist. I know we live on earth. I know I am a human. There is evidence and proof for all of these, these are all objective claims. But the claim of God is not an absolute claim. It is a claim based on belief. You never answered my question of what you believe of god.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 12:48:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

One of the issues I see in that debate is the use of "100%". It is not a term used in reality such that even scientific theories leave open the capacity of falsifiability. I don't know of any theory that claims 100%.

Remove that from the debate and you'll find much more reasonable and rational explanations will emerge.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:21:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:48:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

One of the issues I see in that debate is the use of "100%". It is not a term used in reality such that even scientific theories leave open the capacity of falsifiability. I don't know of any theory that claims 100%.

Remove that from the debate and you'll find much more reasonable and rational explanations will emerge.

That's also a reason why agnosticism is reasonable. If there were theories that either affirm or deny "God", they would still be falsifiable. Thus, it is not possible to claim 100% knowledge of the existence or non existence of a God.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:22:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:48:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

One of the issues I see in that debate is the use of "100%". It is not a term used in reality such that even scientific theories leave open the capacity of falsifiability. I don't know of any theory that claims 100%.

Remove that from the debate and you'll find much more reasonable and rational explanations will emerge.

Also the debate is over. Feel free to vote!
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 1:21:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:48:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

One of the issues I see in that debate is the use of "100%". It is not a term used in reality such that even scientific theories leave open the capacity of falsifiability. I don't know of any theory that claims 100%.

Remove that from the debate and you'll find much more reasonable and rational explanations will emerge.

That's also a reason why agnosticism is reasonable. If there were theories that either affirm or deny "God", they would still be falsifiable. Thus, it is not possible to claim 100% knowledge of the existence or non existence of a God.

You might be missing the point here, using the 100% guideline is rather fallacious, it won't allow for any debate either way. The debate is essentially a non sequitur.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:54:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 1:38:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/19/2015 1:21:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:48:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

One of the issues I see in that debate is the use of "100%". It is not a term used in reality such that even scientific theories leave open the capacity of falsifiability. I don't know of any theory that claims 100%.

Remove that from the debate and you'll find much more reasonable and rational explanations will emerge.

That's also a reason why agnosticism is reasonable. If there were theories that either affirm or deny "God", they would still be falsifiable. Thus, it is not possible to claim 100% knowledge of the existence or non existence of a God.

You might be missing the point here, using the 100% guideline is rather fallacious, it won't allow for any debate either way. The debate is essentially a non sequitur.

What I'm trying to say is that no belief is wrong, per say, but none is right, either. Each belief makes a claim. I'm arguing that the most reasonable claim is the one made by agnosticism.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

Weak atheist is the best position.

If you see no mail in your mailbox, what do you assume?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 1:59:23 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:43:21 AM, Pase66 wrote:
Hey there. This is a topic that I think would be interesting to discuss. And there just was a debate between me and Toxifrost, and I ask if you people could please check it out and vote. Thank you, and I hope we can start an interesting conversation here.

http://www.debate.org...

Weak atheist is the best position.

If you see no mail in your mailbox, what do you assume?

That the mail hasn't arrived yet, there is no mail, the postal system made a mistake, or my mail was stolen.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...