CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Agnosticism is based in logic. Atheism is based in anger and hate.
The first part is true. The second part isn't necessarily true. I'm an atheist and it has nothing to do with anger or hate. I just consider the probabilities to be much greater on that side.
I'm an atheist and it has nothing to do with anger or hate. I just consider the probabilities to be much greater on that side.
Sure Nom. If it was simply based on some magical probability that you can in no way show us with math, you wouldn't go beserk every time someone mentioned Jesus or God. You'd simply be indifferent, but you aren't. You're butthurt, and begin calling people stupid, saying Jesus never existed despite evidence, etc.
You desire for there to be no god. That's your insentive, not logic or open mindedness.
Religion and faith are a different matter entirely, because it's not about exploring possibilities and looking for answers at that point, it's about mindlessly believing what the book says.
it's about mindlessly believing what the book says.
I would say it's possible to mindlessly not believe something just for the purpose of not believing.
For example, several Atheists have claimed "Jesus was a Socialist" as though they know he was a Socialist. But, if you study what the Bible actually says, there is no way to come to that conclusion. They either got that idea from someone else on the Internet, or they thought they kind of knew what the Bible said, but didn't really know when it came down to it.
The point? Most Atheists read a few Atheist sites and think they know the Bible, when a good debator who knows the Bible will shred the arguments on these sites to pieces. People reading Atheist sites only, don't know the Bible. And almost no Atheists know the Quran, the Sunah, the Hadith, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Enoch, the Gnostic gospels, the Urantia Book etc. at all. I do. That's not "mindlessly believing a book". That is "exploring". And due to my exploring, I know things someone who hasn't "explored" doesn't know.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism with belief.
That is why atheism is (technically) irrational and agnosticism isn't.
Atheism is lack of (or no) belief.
False. This is actually strong evidence that atheists abuse the same logical fallacies that religious people do. Atheism is obviously not a neutral position, so attempting to present it as one is fallacious.
Atheism is a rejection of the premise that a God or Gods exist end of story.
Precisely. This is why it is a fallacy when atheists claim atheism is a "lack of belief". Stock atheists try to force a third answer into a closed question which has only two answers. To reject a premise or to "lack belief" in it is to say you don't believe it. And since you don't have any direct evidence to support the belief that their belief is false, atheists are technically being irrational.
. To reject a premise or to "lack belief" in it is to say you don't believe it.
Nonsense , it does not mean that one accepts the premise that no god or gods exist , it’s placing the burden of proof firmly with the one making the affirmative claim.
Nonsense , it does not mean that one accepts the premise that no god or gods exist , it’s placing the burden of proof firmly with the one making the affirmative claim.
You are a stupid piece of shit that doesn't know the difference between agnosticism or atheism, or what happens when you combine them.
Atheist: God doesn't exist period.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Agnostic-Atheist: I don't know, but I suspect no God exists.
it does not mean that one accepts the premise that no god or gods exist
Yes it does you brainless dope. If I ask you if you believe God exists you can only answer yes or no. You can't answer, "I reject your premise" you irritatingly thick, pointlessly stupid child.
Moreover, rejecting the premise that God exists without any direct evidence that God does not exist is IRRATIONAL, like I've just explained.
I don't have a problem with you being argumentative. My problem is that you never have an argument. That's why your posts are so pointless.
Stop it you dummy your stupidity is a thing of wonder
If I ask you if you believe God exists you can only answer yes or no. You can't answer, "I reject your premise" you irritatingly thick, pointlessly stupid child.
Incorrect.....again
Moreover, rejecting the premise that God exists without any direct evidence that God does not exist is IRRATIONAL, like I've just explained.
Logic and you are not compatible you thick fuck let me educate you again Doofus .....
You never heard of The Gumball Analogy obviously it may be a tad tricky for you and no doubt lead you into anther hate filled rant .....again
A hypothetical jar filled with a large number of gumballs, any positive claim about whether there were an odd or even number of gumballs would be dubious without further supporting evidence. Therefore, not believing the claim "the number of gumballs is even" without evidence does not mean believing that the number is, in fact, odd. Likewise, not believing the claim "there is a god" without evidence does not mean believing that there isn't one.
I don't have a problem with you being argumentative. My problem is that you never have an argument.
A hypothetical jar filled with a large number of gumballs, any positive claim about whether there were an odd or even number of gumballs would be dubious without further supporting evidence.
LOL! Gumballs? Ahahahahaha!
Listen again you rabidly stupid moron. When you REJECT a premise which can only either be true or not true (i.e. "there is a God") you are left with only one remaining option. Do you understand how that works, you laughably stupid imbecile? Two minus one is one.
Logic and you are not compatible you thick fuck let me educate you again Doofus .....
You never heard of The Gumball Analogy obviously it may be a tad tricky for you and no doubt lead you into anther hate filled rant .....again
A hypothetical jar filled with a large number of gumballs, any positive claim about whether there were an odd or even number of gumballs would be dubious without further supporting evidence. Therefore, not believing the claim "the number of gumballs is even" without evidence does not mean believing that the number is, in fact, odd. Likewise, not believing the claim "there is a god" without evidence does not mean believing that there isn't one.
I don't have a problem with you being argumentative. My problem is that you never have an argument.
I do not see any evidence that atheism is intrinsically based in anger and hate, nor that agnosticism is intrinsically based on logic. People are a mixed bag.
Atheism
Some atheist are angry and hateful, but some are not. Similarly, religions have histories replete with hatred and anger (the Inquisition, crusades, and American conquest; sectarian violence in India, Muslim history, etc., ad naseum) but they also include instances of compassion, tolerance, and affirmation of beauty and life.
Sure, being emotion-oriented is often at the root of believing unproven propositions, but not always. Sometimes, given lack of evidence, people simply choose to believe an option for reasons other than emotions or reasonableness of a proposition. Often, in order to fit in, people just go along with whatever their families or friends believe. Sometimes for the sake of standing out, people choose to believe something counter to beliefs of others in their social group.
Agnosticism
By the same token, while agnosticism can be a logical acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for the existence or non-existence of god, it can also be a default in lieu of actual thought. Often when answering a question about anything they do not want to spend effort to consider, people simply say, "I don't know," not because it is a logical answer, but because they are lazy or indifferent.
