It's more logical to be agnostic versus being an atheist
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)
 Pro 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. "  Con 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! |
 |
|
Pro 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. Con Realistinpursuitoftruth forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro mall forfeited this round.
Con Realistinpursuitoftruth forfeited this round. |
 |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.
There is no logic to atheism. Only the absence of some dreams.
Realist, I have no idea why you accepted this after seeing that.