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.
Yes. In my opinion anyway. I'm a agnostic atheist. I don't disregard the idea of 'god'. In simple terms it's by far the most rational because it has no belief in what can't be proved. Atheism, Christianity, Muslim, ect. All of them base their beliefs on personal, illogical, non-rational thoughts.
Please give me one illogical or non-rational thought on Muslim.
And I agree agnosticism has NOTHING against it. But it isnt rational or irrational, it is nothing. It is ignorance. Its just the idea that you dont know.
There isn't anything illogical about it other then that fact that it's a belief in something that may or may not exist.
Agnosticism is 100% rational and 0% irrational. It's not a religion, but it does have it's beliefs. As said by it's description, agnosticism is just the idea of looking at the 'truth', and that can't have anything other then rationalism. It never states anything about 'not knowing'.
Banana Slug has a point. And I've said it before...
People have thoughts, and agnostics have thoughts and beliefs as well yet state because they do not know, nothing is true. Yet in the same breathe they'll state, X, Y, Z is existent; like their shoes, or their clothes. So they pick and choose what is there and what they believe, which is normal. However, to state they do not know is ridiculous. A human being knows something at the very least.
For example, I am a theist whom believes there is at least one God in existence, and that I cannot say for certain that what other believe is false, though I continue to believe in what I believe in 100 percent.
Further, I do not state what I believe and state "However, I do not know"....Why? Because it's obvious that I believe in something though I admit that I cannot tell a person "What they believe in is not truth". And so, what I believe in versus what others believe in become a sort of separation, via human uniqueness and individuality, and that.
And so an agnostic to state, I believe this, that and whatever, however, I do not know, is absurd. Not because I cannot understand it, and purely because even agnostics believe in something. And apparently it derives from "I do not know"...
A human that states "I do not know", is trying to not be a human. They're trying to be a fly on the wall of existence and humanity and the universe. Humans are confined. Humans are limited. Humans are beautiful yet dirty and dark.
At least atheists admit they believe in something, and that is that "god(s) does not exist"..
Agnostics sit back and say "well i dont know"....and thats it?
By that logic you do know of God's existence or inexistence. So by all means, tell me if he does or does not, because as an agnostic myself, I wonder.
For example, I am a theist whom believes there is at least one God in existence, and that I cannot say for certain that what other believe is false, though I continue to believe in what I believe in 100 percent.
Congratulations, you told me of belief. Atheists don't have belief. Theists do have belief. Agnostics don't have absolute belief because, as we'll tell you, we just don't know.
Is that so bad to not know when there's no evidence either way?
For example, I am a theist whom believes there is at least one God in existence, and that I cannot say for certain that what other believe is false, though I continue to believe in what I believe in 100 percent.
Saying agnosticism is ridiculous is virtually the same as saying their belief system is phony. So you kind of just did.
And so an agnostic to state, I believe this, that and whatever, however, I do not know, is absurd.
Again, tell me more about all you know of your God.
Not because I cannot understand it, and purely because even agnostics believe in something.
That's an abstract statement not relating to your belief of God or not. I believe I exist, I don't know if I'm all that exists. that's logical. You never can with an outside perspective, but you'll only ever have your own.
A human that states "I do not know", is trying to not be a human.
Now that's absurd. Failing a test, doesn't mean you were not a human to fail the test it just means you did not know most of the answers. If anything, it's more human not to know. We as a society are not that old, we have a very limited knowledge. We don't even know if there is any life out there on other planets.
They're trying to be a fly on the wall of existence and humanity and the universe.
Creative, but invalid. A fly flies around the room discovering it's location back and forth. It's eyes are constantly scanning the place for information. So really, your analogy could be applied to agnostics. They don't know, they search for answers, and are nor sticking to one side until more proof has been presented.
At least atheists admit they believe in something, and that is that "god(s) does not exist"..
Incorrect. Atheists don't "believe god does not exist."
Atheists "Lack belief in any god"
There is a difference.
Agnostics sit back and say "well i dont know"....and thats it?8*
So you think agnostics never do anything? You believe there are no agnostic scientists looking for answers out there? By that same logic, all theists must do nothing, what with knowing already. And every atheist must be doing everything all the time, what with having no answers.
There are many agnostics whom study and learn something new and what not everyday.
So for them to state "We just dont k now". They are attempting to separate themselves from what they do know, what they do study. As if everything they've learned equates = We do not know. Which is it?
Agnostics sit back and ponder as if everything in life is going to be set on a plate for them to digest. Life is not like that. Life, nor the Universe, is going to feed your every thought or concepts, life is not going to portray itself to you so easily.
Agnostics are the perfect example that "chase the magic dragon", that is they essentially desire truth, yet when they understand more and more they sit back and say "Well yeah im not sure what I know is truth, therefore, nothing is truth/and or, what I know is 'i do not know'." Do you see how I'm putting it and how it really is?
Many times Agnostics rely on science, then claim "I do now know." Well fuck, if science is what they come back on, then their science is false altogether! .
Okay we are not getting anyway in this argument. What atheism, theism, and agnosticism, have in common is God. let me begin.
There are many agnostics whom study and learn something new and what not everyday.
So for them to state "We just dont k now". They are attempting to separate themselves from what they do know, what they do study. As if everything they've learned equates = We do not know. Which is it?
What agnostics still don't know is... GOD.
Agnostics sit back and ponder as if everything in life is going to be set on a plate for them to digest.
What the ones who don't go searching are waiting for is an answer to the question "Does God exist or not?"
Life is not like that.
Life is not the topic, God is.
Life, nor the Universe, is going to feed your every thought or concepts, life is not going to portray itself to you.
None of these things did anything for Atheists or Theists either, so I don't know where you're going with that.
Agnostics are the perfect example that "chase the magic dragon"
What!? if anything that's theists, but that's another debate entirely.
that is they essentially desire truth,
Who ever said all agnostics desire truth? Their are people who exists that just don't care, you know?
yet when they understand more and more they sit back and say "Well yeah im not sure what I know is truth, therefore, nothing is truth/and or, what I know is 'i do not know'."
Yet one truth has still never been revealed, "Is god real or not?"
Do you see how I'm putting it and how it really is?
Yes, incorrectly.
Many times Agnostics rely on science, then claim "I do now know.
No sane agnostics, hell,no anyone, has ever used science or anything yet, to prove God is real or not.
They might as well crawl in a hole and await death to take them.
I could say that's what theists are doing. Their proverbial hole is their religion and the belief that by doing good they'll go to heaven, but as I said earlier, another debate entirely.
Believing in X, Y, Z god(s) (in my opinion) has little to do with what happens after death.
As far as I am concerned, I do not believe in God because I "know" where I'll go after death.
I believe in God because I know there is something there beyond what science, what "meets the eye", because how complex nature and beauty is, because humans have free will, because there is no other species, as far as we know, that can have an intellectual conversation about such things, because humans are a variety and unique yet the same animal. (Little can be said about other animals, as far as being unique in concerned. or having more choice. or questioning its own existence).
I also believe because I am allowed to. If I was not allowed to believe, then perhaps it would be different.
And so, no I am not hiding in a hole waiting to die.
I am full force on the front lines of existence, trying to persuade both sides (that is those that do not believe and those that do) to find common ground. I am a libra. I am on this earth to find balance, with my life and the world around me. I am not here to profess that I am god. I am nothing but a human being like everyone else on this earth, whom questions its existence. My job and opportunity is to try to find a balance of the two, of non believers and believers. I desire balance. Nothing more, nothing less.
All that you explained about your knowing God is exists, is the stuff atheists explain about knowing God is a hooey because science has proved it all. What the agnostics still don't know is, if God created the sciences or if the sciences have a further understanding. They don't know if God exists, why is that so bad?
And so, no I am not hiding in a hole waiting to die
Your hole is your belief. It's your security that you have nothing to fear when you die because God has accepted you into his kingdom. I have come to my senses that atheists too have a hole. Science. it's not official, they don't have to look to science, but when they do want to feel safe after death, science is uslay the place. Agnostics' hole is not knowing. But it's not really like they have security in not knowing, they just do not know, and can't help it.
I'd quote your final paragraph but that would be unnecessary you already know it.
You're talking about finding balance, yet you think people who lie in the middle of knowing God does exist, and knowing he does not are out of their right mind? Yea sure.
Once again, I do not believe in God because I fear death.
I'm not speaking of Agnosticism with God, in recent responses.
I claim Agnostics (not including God) do not know what they believe, even though they believe.
YOU CLAIM, that I CLAIM, I speak of Agnosticism within god. It's not true.
I CLAIM that Agnostics claim something and then claim something else, and then decide "They do not know".
Agnostics are so worked about the whole God thing, yet they claim they know something and then claim they do not know something.
Even leaving god out, Agnostic claim what? To me they claim, "Nothing we learn is true because 'they do not know'." In this case, why learn science? Why try to understand knowledge? If in the end, nothing is truth.
Once again, I do not believe in God because I fear death.
I could not prove either way about that but I'll take your word, though I know some Christians who use the lord as their solace for the evil in the world.
I'm not speaking of Agnosticism with God, in recent responses.
Then what are we arguing about!? loll, here I've been trying to convince you that agnostics have a more valid more logical stance on God than theists and Atheists.
I claim Agnostics (not including God) do not know what they believe, even though they believe.
But that's the importance of the religion. The religion does not know of God's existence,which is a great deal more logical that knowing either way what with zero evidence either way.
I CLAIM that Agnostics claim something and then claim something else, and then decide "They do not know".
I'm not being one of those dicks when I ask, could you give me an example?
yet they claim they know something and then claim they do not know something.
Again I need an example, I have never met an agnostic, a real one, that said they knew either way about god, then claimed another thing.
Even leaving god out, Agnostic claim what? To me they claim, "Nothing we learn is true because 'they do not know'." In this case, why learn science? Why try to understand knowledge? If in the end, nothing is truth.
I also must admit that, that's another debate, but I digress. The only thing about agnosticism is the belief of God's existence or not, the other things that any agnostic claims, is not of their religion, it's of their philosophical view on existence of matter.
I am one of those people. I claim that without knowing another's perspective, i can never know if my perspective is correct.
The stuff I do not know about, I do not need to know about, it's just stuff I know I don't know about(lol). My religious belief did not sway that, in fact that might have been the reason for my religious belief. I came to a wall and said this is a wll. A man said to me, this wall is a door, he twisted the knob and he went into the door. I then knew it was a door. I came to God's idea, and said, I have no information either way, so I don't know. I'm still waiting for the man to show me either way.
Deal it, I choose not to, that's my belief system. Deal with that.
As an agnostic atheist mostly, I chose this side because it appealed to my sense of logic best. It has a potential to leave a God out there somewhere in the universe but maintains that with no evidence there probably isn't one.
Theists have both "reasons for" and "understanding of" their beliefs so I have to say they are rational. I'm an atheists and believe that logic and the scientific method is the best way to determine ones "position" so to me, agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
I am an existential and moral nihilist. Basically, I believe that the only purpose in life is to find purpose (meet a girl, become a pro at algebra, do whatever you want). I also believe that morality is a social construct, so there is no right and no wrong.
For me, being this way provides me with unlimited freedom. I find it very epic.
If you're an agnostic atheist, that simply defeats the idea of 'atheism'. Atheism is opposed to theism, the belief in any one (or more) being being the creature of the universe and all life. Atheism says " No this is not true, life is a complex web of science logic and reason." Or there abouts. Saying that you're opposed to religion, but still think that there might be something else out there, simply doesn't work.
I am an atheist, and in my opinion it is the most rational position. It is not rational to believe in something you have no proof or evidence of, and have no reason to believe in it, but still to. That is highly irrational.
Nah, in my opinion the idea and curiousity of a human being to want to believe in X, Y, Z god (s) is more natural to the human than to say "well, no one knows for sure, therefore, there is no god (s) and no one should really believe it because it's irrational and uncertain".
I say: "Well, since no one knows for sure, therefore, there must be a god (s) and I choose to believe it no matter if no one else does, because it's rational, natural."
I would say that most atheists don't dispute the idea of god because "...no one knows for sure...". Most atheists fail to see any reason (reasonable to them) as to why you should believe in god and the arguments and evidence (again in their view) point to other explanations of how the universe works.
Your conclusion does not follow. Because we do not know, it is therefore more rational to believe in a deity? That doesn't make sense. By that logic, let's believe in all mythical creatures too.
The most rational position is that if there is no evidence for a claim, the default position is to not believe the claim. If you want to argue the opposite, that if there is no evidence for a claim, we should still believe it anyways, then we descend into nonsense.
Bob: I can fly.
Jim: No you can't.
Bob: You can't prove that I cannot fly. Therefore the default position is that you must believe I can fly.
Jim: Damn you! Fine.
The most rational position is to lack belief in phenomena until evidence comes forth confirming its existence.
My conclusion is fine; because no one knows for sure, I believe because I'm allowed to believe, I'm given a choice to believe.
Because no one knows for 100% absolute certainty, it's okay to believe in something in which there isn't any evidence for? Come on...you know that's not rational.
I believe it is within human nature to choose both to believe and to not believe.
Of course, neither I nor anyone else (I hope) would strip your ability to worship whatever religion you want freely.
Rationally speaking, in my opinion, it is more natural to believe than to not believe. Again this is my theory.
I would like to know why you believe it to be rational, what is your explanation or justification for this?
I believe because I am allowed to choose to believe.
One of the main reasons you believe in a higher power, is the mere fact that you are able to choose whether you believe in a higher power or not?
You should try visiting the subreddit r/atheism. They have both believers (typically christians), and non believers there who post quite interesting content. Ranging from the personal transition to atheism, to comical memes of religious believers. It's typically enlightening for both believers and non believers, is all I'm saying.
Rational thought is believing in something we cannot see. It makes perfect sense, that's how science has developed and progressed. Why can't religion have (been) doing the same? Ah you can't keep the quest to understanding the world around us to only science, can you? Shame shame.
People did not simply believe in religious thought and god(s) because they were primitive, no.
According to you, science will one day become obsolete and another source of truth will reveal itself. And do you really believe science will go away?
Rational thought is believing in something we cannot see. It makes perfect sense, that's how science has developed and progressed. Why can't religion have (been) doing the same?
Why? It odes not offer any proof of anything
Ah you can't keep the quest to understanding the world around us to only science, can you?
There is no competitor to science. Science works, Creationism doesn't.
People did not simply believe in religious thought and god(s) because they were primitive, no.
Yes they do.
According to you, science will one day become obsolete and another source of truth will reveal itself. And do you really believe science will go away?
Science works because you believe its the "best" solution to the "problem"; that is, science is the "best and only source of truth" to the world around you.
This has NOTHING to do with creationism. Creationism simply states us humans were here by design, including scientific design.
Truth is NOT ONLY qualified towards science. Religion has it's place too and you cannot see it, which makes you blind to the truth..
I'd say that theism is the most rational position; however, agnosticism is the most scientific. Science requires evidence, which means that it intrinsically cannot rationally advocate or disavow something unless there is measurable/observable/etc. material to analyze.
