CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Noxstant

Reward Points:176
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:173
Debates:2
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

My interest in this topic is not personal. Also, nothing about being an Atheist necessitates you removing a deity as a possibility.

We don't have to know an origin to have a belief/opinion on it. That is the whole point of a belief. You make the best judgment with the evidence you have, but you leave your mind open new information. I feel like most self-proclaimed Agnostics don't think (a belief, not epistemology) there is a deity, yet fear of being wrong seems like a factor preventing initial thoughts to occur as to what the origin is. I am merely trying to make a distinction between thinking about the origin of the Universe as compared to the argument that we can or cannot know its origin.

If God were real, I would also not change a thing I do, as the ones described in religions are evil. I also would be very disappointed if this vast, and awesome Universe was created by a personified creator.

2 points

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The tiny part of what people have applied to Agnosticism (the kind you are referring to, not the classical kind) is the differences between a belief and knowledge. But knowledge is simply a justified true belief. There would be no reason to have a belief if it was justified and true. We would then refer to that as knowledge. Agnosticism was meant to be about knowing God's existence. When someone asks religious views, they typically do not mean the question epistemologically. The typically mean "what do you think the origin of existence is?" You fall in the very broad category of Atheism because you lack a belief in god(s). I'm just trying to show you that the debate over the Universe's origin and the debate over whether or not we can know that origin are very different.

1 point

Correct. The body is but a shell as is according to Christianity. Again, I must remind you everyone that this is not a debate for or against the existence of Jesus. It is merely a philosophical question regarding the identity of a character in literature.

1 point

That is irrelevant to the argument. Why can you not understand that? This is a philosophical problem regarding the identity of Jesus as a character. Your analogy is fallacious because this argument has no involvement with the belief or the lack of belief in Jesus. You must not let your emotions cloud your judgement.

1 point

In Christianity, physical form is not an essential attribute to being human. If you dispute otherwise, you are advocating that humans are purely physical.

2 points

The argument that about God's existence is an entirely different one than the argument about if God can be known. It is not a middle ground of ontological beliefs.

Neither of your links work.

1 point

Give me an example of ten people alive today that are considered equal.

Not saving something isn't the same as killing. Is a baseball closer entirely responsible for a loss if the team doesn't win?

1 point

You also misunderstand the definition of Atheism. The narrow scope of Atheism involves the lack of belief in a deity. Thus, ontologically you are an Atheist. Agnosticism is an entirely different debate. Also, there would be no need for a debate if everything was proven.

1 point

There are many, many other more humane ways of cleansing meat.

1 point

I agree with your initial opinion, but I am disputing you because many won't. That is the real problem.

As for taxes, taxes are very important to continuing just about everything. Without them, we might as well live in the woods.

About Me


"I am a physics and computer science major at WVU. I wish to understand the nature of existence fully"

Biographical Information
Name: Cecil O'Dell
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: In College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here