The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Realistinpursuitoftruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It's more logical to be agnostic versus being an atheist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 119414
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

mall

Pro

The more welcomed format that people are willing to accept. I'll make my point, You make yours.

It's more logical or only logical to be neutral on the stance for the existence of a deity. Whether one exists or not, It hasn't been proven either way.

What's your take?

"Disclaimer: Please, When accepting the challenge, You accept the premise, Subject, Topic as is. If there's any contention with the words, Definitions or disagreement with context, Please send a message first. The debate rounds are not meant to put your contentions or disputes about the topic in. "
Realistinpursuitoftruth

Con

Before presenting my argument I'd like to state that I am an agnostic atheist. Meaning I can't say for sure that a God or Gods do not exist however I am not convinced that a God or Gods do exist.
I'd also like to add that I saw read the previous post you put up and agree with the other individual that accepted your that it is probable that you misunderstand these terms however I will try to debate your argument as literally as I can for the sake of my enjoyment. . .

Unfortunately it is VERY VERY rare to find a rational individual who is a Gnostic and sane so it's going to be extremely hard to debate from this standpoint.

This premise kind of like saying would you rather wear a grey tracksuit or wear an Adidas tracksuit.

Anyway here it goes. .

It is more logical to be unconvinced that a God or Gods exist (Atheism) than it is to not know whether a God or God exists or not(agnosticism). The reason is simply because if you had the choice to be agnostic or not then the only logical thing to do is KNOW whether or not God exists because then you would have very valuable information. Some people say ignorance is bliss but I disagree. . Knowledge is power!
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

"It is more logical to be unconvinced that a God or Gods exist (Atheism) than it is to not know whether a God or God exists or not(agnosticism). The reason is simply because if you had the choice to be agnostic or not then the only logical thing to do is KNOW whether or not God exists because then you would have very valuable information. "

Isn't it because someone is unconvinced of something, They don't know or may not know? Is this not really one in the same? If you know something to be factual, You have the truth, You have evidence, Why would you not be convinced? Would you be in denial? Could a person possibly be delusional? They have knowledge, They have evidence, What more could persuade them? So without a factual basis, You may disbelieve like an atheist. An agnostic doesn't even have disbelief, That individual is totally neutral. A person does have a choice on whatever position they take for whatever reason. So where does the "if you had the choice" come in at? As far as knowing or not knowing, The differences in that change the position that the person holds. Once the person knows what there is to know, Their position changes. I think we practically saying the same thing but the terms are flipped around.
Realistinpursuitoftruth

Con

Realistinpursuitoftruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

mall forfeited this round.
Realistinpursuitoftruth

Con

Realistinpursuitoftruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
Correction: Thank you everyone for your feedback.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
Thanks you everyone for your feedback. It's welcomed.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Please try to recognize that you are all atheists to every religion other than your own. I highly doubt you're suspending belief in all other religions.

Atheists would say "I don't believe God(s) exist. "
Theists would say "I believe God(s) exist. " (in some form or fashion)

Agnostics would say "I don't know whether or not God(s) exist. " (some would say it is not possible to know)
Gnostics would say "I know God(s) exist. "

An Agnostic Atheist would say "I don't know if God(s) exist or not, But I don't believe God(s) exist(s). "
An Agnostic Theist would say "I don't know if God(s) exist or not, But I believe God(s) exist(s). "
A Gnostic Atheist would say "I KNOW God(s) doesn't (don't) exist. "
A Gnostic Theist would say "I KNOW God(s) exist(s). "

For those that don't know, This debate topic is absurd because the positions are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
Thoht, All you have to do is seek clarification and agree before accepting a debate challenge, That's all friend.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"logic" is a strange thing. . "A stone can not swim. . My mother can not swim. . My mother must be a stone. "
There is no logic to atheism. Only the absence of some dreams.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
They aren't mutually exclusive at all. They are two entirely separate questions. Please see mall's debate with me on this. He has refused to use the proper definitions of these terms now even after reposting.

Realist, I have no idea why you accepted this after seeing that.
Posted by mall 3 years ago
mall
For anyone that agrees or accepts that an atheist and agnostic are separate positions that can be mixed together, Your welcome to accept the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.