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.
If you are Agnostic you neither believe nor disbelieve.
You believe in sciences, while still giving the benefit of the doubt towards there being some greater power.
It is essentially like playing it safe, if atheists are wrong then they're screwed. However if nothing does happen when we die, hey as an Agnostic you never ignored sciences and lead an enlightened life.
I believe thoroughly that Agnosticism is the best possible mentality to maintain in a religious sense. Despite what everyone says, no one has an answer at all as to how it began or will end. Religious people will say God made it and will be there for us at absolution. Atheists say shit blew up, here we are and that's it. As an agnostic the general ideal is to not argue with anyone and merely weigh all the facts, ideals and theories accordingly and then base your judgment on that. It is the most open minded mentality possible as well as the most humble.
I fail to see how agnosticism is playing it safe. Do you think that God is gonna be like "Well, he was an agnostic...... close enough, right?". If we are talking about christian theology here, just considering that god 'might be real' is not going to earn you a place in heaven, it doesn't work like that. Even if it did, then wouldn't God see through your act?
To me it seems as silly as considering the existence of Ahura Mazda (God of the Zoroastrians) just in case he is real. You realize there are millions of gods and hundreds of religions. At a certain point you just need to not be paranoid about it.
he was a major Secular Progressive who came to this site.
I had a huge debate with him about Agnosticism vs. Atheism. I'll admit that I was a bit wrong. I will still say that people view them in different lights, but I actually like Ledhead's definition and live by that one.
As an atheist, I filter out bullshit. Someone claims that something is real and I'll ask for evidence. If they can't provide anything, i'll simply ignore them.
But as an Agnostic, I'll also understand that we can never be too sure about major issues like God and Universal Origins.
Firstly, it's impossible to vote yes or no when you're presented with two questions.
Secondly, agnosticism is not a religious choice.
I look at those who claim to be agnostic as people who have either failed to make a decision on the subject of theism vs atheism, or simply don't want to state which way they're leaning.
Nobody can say with 100% certainty if anything supernatural exists.
If you ask me, nothing exists until it's proven to exist and from that point on, "belief" in its existence is no longer required.
Take the god of Christianity; the only reason anybody believes he exists is because there's a book that says he does. The fact that this book falls apart the moment it's held up to any level of scrutiny above that which a five year old is capable of, leads me to believe his existence is quite improbable.
Therefore, given the choice of considering myself part of the atheist or theist camp, I would certainly choose the former, but there's no way to know for sure which camp's got it right.
Because I recognize this, am I an agnostic rather than an atheist? If you want to split hairs, such a recognition makes all who share it agnostic, no matter what we consider to be the most likely reality.
So in answer to the second question, since it's the only valid one of the two, I'd have to say no...it isn't like playing it safe.
If you are Agnostic you neither believe nor disbelieve.
You believe in sciences, while still giving the benefit of the doubt towards there being some greater power.
It is essentially like playing it safe, if atheists are wrong then they're screwed. However if nothing does happen when we die, hey as an Agnostic you never ignored sciences and lead an enlightened life.
Religion - noun -
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Religion doesn't have to deal with supernatural beings =P
If you argue the point that Agnosticism isn't very religious, and the definition of religion doesn't necessarily have to deal with supernatural beings, how am I straying the context of my own debate?
That and theres a no it doesn't at the end of your argument, care to enlighten?
You said, It is essentially like playing it safe, if atheists are wrong then they're screwed.
A reasonable person would infer that you're referring to the judgement of a deity, but I suppose there's nothing stopping you from heading over to dictionary.com again and pointing out that a deity can be taken to mean a "divine creature of nature".
And when I said no it doesn't I was referring to this:
the definition of religion doesn'tnecessarily have to deal with supernatural beings
It seems obvious to me, that both positions by their very definition involve a lack of religiosity.
But they do in that they are religions which people follow, whether or not they involve a greater being.
Atheism is a religion.
A reasonable person would infer that you're referring to the judgement of a deity
Ding ding ding we have a winner! If Atheists are screwed then yes there would have to be a supernatural being that had put them in some form of hell/purgatory, making there religious choice wrong.
However if there is no supernatural being, then Atheists were correct. As an Agnostic you could lead a life enlightened by scientific discovery while never denouncing any supernatural being, as nothing is 100%.
Given the definition of Agnostic is between Atheism and Catholicism as a religion, thats why I provided the dictionary definition in the debates description =P
If hypothetically speaking there is a God, if you denounce him then you are screwed for all eternity.
However if God is non existent ( which I know you are a firm believer of ) then as an Atheist you get the cookie in the end with being right.
don't most protestant religions say if you don't affirm him your screwed. so as a agnostic you don't get the cookie.So a agnostic isn't playing it safe according to some religions; also there is no such thing in religion all of them can be wrong and the true religion stopped being passed along and thus all of us are going to burn in hell... also if god keeps his other properties commonly given to him he becomes evil if there is a hell. all-knowing; all-powerful ,freewill, hell, all good, etc. lead to inconsistencies when one reasons with them.
That is however only one viewpoint of many under the belief of God. Catholics/Christians hold the main population of the believers in God, you need not affirm of his existence merely say a prayer here and there and never denounce. Whilst being an Agnostic you can be a switch hitter, never denouncing and yet never knowing. While fully embracing the atheistic ideals of evolution etc.
However you are disagreeing with Agnosticism being as though one is playing it safe. Mixing ideals of differentiating religions can only increase your chances. Right?
can you really satisfy the requirements of all of the religions?
Can you satisfy the requirements of what is not a religion but which possibly determine if you go to heaven or hell. Can you know what those non-religious standards are or if there are any? The majority may believe in a particular standard, that does not make the standard more correct.
i suppose trying to satisfy as many as possible increases your chances, but there are infinite possibilities when it comes towards the subject. Raising your number of religions/denominations who qualify you as "saved" doesn't effect your percentage of actually being "saved" much, if there is such a thing.
agnostic or atheism is best depending on the religion; atheism when the logic says so, agnosticism when the evidence says so. you can be a disbelieving atheist towards a certain religion or an agnostic towards another one. Religions by definition are not empirical, they deal with "super-natural' forces and such. Although Eastern ones tend to resemble philosophy alot and become kinda iffy, and there are "pseudo-religions", church of the sub genius for example .
If you take the best two choices you are more than likely going to have a larger chance in being right in the end, agreeable?
There are so many different choices, picking the right one would be nearly impossible. So in going with Agnosticism it is hard to be wrong, you don't denounce Creationism and you don't denounce the opposer.
Its like saying i don't know if I'm voting for candidate a or candidate b or candidate c etc. so i won' vote; well candidate A gets into office and decides everyone that didn't vote for him shall be executed. I'm still dead. If candidate B gets into office and says every one which voted against me is dead then i'm alive. if candidate c gets into office then everyone with blue hair dies, then i'm dead if my hair is died blue. candidate E kills everyone who did vote etc. Maybe candidate c kills everyone that voted for him, you don't know whos going to get into office, cause who does doesn't depend on voting. Its a gamble, no matter if you vote or not.
Being an agnostic means that you have no religious preference. If, perchance, there is a God - then you 'lucked out'. The only chance you have (if there is a God) is to believe in the right religion.
Agnosticism isn't a religious choice, unless you are religious beforehand and choose to not be certain, which seems to be unheard of.
Most reasonable people don't take unnecessary absolutes. In philosophical matters it's the same, it's better to admit ignorance than to preach certainty. On the issue of god, upon hearing the best evidence gathered over the centuries, a logical, rational mind is unconvinced. That means that without appealing to emotions or threats, god has no leg to stand on. However most atheists won't say "I know for certain that there is no god" because although very unlikely, one can't have completely certainty on the issue.
Being agnostic is not a religion. It is merely, in my opinion, a term used to describe a person who has yet to decide for himself/herself what side they want to stick to. The side that says there is no God(Atheism) vs. The side that says there is a God(Theism). My friend and I were discussing this the other day. She has already made up her mind and has chosen Atheism, which she has no shame in saying aloud. I am still undecided, so I guess you would call me "agnostic". But, being agnostic is not a religion. Either you believe or you don't.
On a side note, if you don't believe in God and it turns out there is a God, then you, along with the undecided agnostics are screwed. If you were right and there was no God, then you would have lived a justified life. But, if you believe in God, you will be fulfilled both ways. Go to heaven, or just to have lived a good life. You take a chance either way, but one side seems to hold more reward.
i would say that agnostics are not unsure of their position, they have decided it is a subject which is currently impossible to decide on. That is their position, atheism and theism agrees that it is a subject possible to decide on. As a agnostic you have both theism and atheism against you.
No, I'm a Christian and if you dont believe in God then your really the same as an Athiest
You cant have the best of both worlds with Religion. You have to fully believe in Christ for you to be safe.
I dont want to say anything more because I cant judge people as its a sin. But as far as i'm concerned its not the best religious choice. I think the best religious choice is religion. I myself believe God is real, I have no doubts but if he wasnt I wouldnt really lose out on anything. I would have lead a moral good life, but if i was an athiest/agnostic and I didnt believe in God and then I found out God was real the hard way then i'd lose.. badly.
Well, it's just as "dangerous" a route as atheism because you're neutral. God's not going to say "Well, you didn't follow the rules, but you didn't break any, so I'll just open the gates of Saint Peter here for you. Enjoy heaven!". C'mon dudes, don't be a Switzerland.
It's not a choice at all. If one wants to avoid a subject one should simply state they don't want to answer, not make up some inbetween world in an attempt to make all things real an imagined happy.
If it is important enough for one to think about, make a decision damnit!
iamdavidh, have you stopped beating your wife yet? <-- classic example of a loaded question. It assumes you have a wife, and that you beat her previously.
Are you a atheist or theist?
assumes certain levels of conviction, and leaves out skepticism of available information. assumes one can not be 100% sure the question is a loaded question aka 100% sure you are 0% sure on the question. Also it is possible to be non-religious and not a atheist, however a answer of theist will suggest one is religious in everyday usage and be inaccurate. By this i mean one can see a underlying unity in life, and choose to see this in mystical terms.
... Choice implies choosing. Agnostic implies lack of choice, thus by definition not a religious choice... Why the f&^% is this so hard? And who keeps downvoting me?
Anyway, absolute knowledge of any sort is impossible, it is unfair to expect it in any circumstance.
Atheist or theist is a matter of what one thinks is more likely.
Human's are incapable of not thinking one or the other of any choice is at least a fraction more or less likely unless they have 0 knowledge.
Assuming since the words "agnostic" and "religious" are in the very title, one would then make a connection between the two if they had never even heard the term agnostic.
Meaning they have an opinion. Pretend you don't if you will, but I know damn well you are either a theist of one sort or another, or an atheist of one sort or another, and that an absolute agnostic is a myth.
I think its just as likly theres a diest god as there isn't, I have no empirical evidence that one is or isn't a more likly situation over the other and I have no logical analysis telling me anything of value on the matter. Does this make me a agnostic, yea i guess.
Do I think the common jeudo-christain-islamic god exists, no and I think it doesn't exist. Does this make me an atheist yea i guess.
I like chaos magic, taoism, modern satanism, discordianism, church of the subgenius, my own religions I make up sometimes does this make me religious? yea i guess
It seems i am all three, atheist, theist, and agnostic. It really depends on the domain we are speaking of.
... and what exactly does any of that have to do with agnostic not being a religious choice?
I fail to see how your review of religion negates the fact that the definition of agnostic is not choosing, and so is inherently not a religious choice.
" It's (agnosticism) not areligiouschoice at all. "(italics added to clarify my understanding of statement) I'm saying agnosticism can be a valid religious position distinct from atheism or theism. My review of religion was meant to demonstrate this. I do not not believe in a deist god, and I also do not believe in a deist god. I do not lean either way, if forced to say one or the other exists i would consider the diest god as superfluous and apply Occam's razor however when it comes towards believing or not believing I need not choose I could believe that both possibilities are just as likly and i do since occams razor isn't a law of the universe but a man made one.
This position of neither believing or not believing due to insufficient evidence that something does or doesn't exist( which constitutes sufficient evidence that you do not know) is the agnostic position and is distinct from atheism and theism. Atheism is not believing no matter if the evidence is sufficient or insufficient and theism is believing no matter if there is either sufficient or insufficient evidence.
There is also a distinction between believing that something probably does or doesn't exist and believing that it does or doesn't. If you believe that something might exist, you also believe something else might exist thus an agnostic believes that both god existing or not existing is possible, possibly to different degrees but no matter what holds no belief that god does or doesn't exist. If you ask someone if they believe god exists and they reply with yes their a theist, if with no their an atheist and if with maybe their an agnostic. (with respect to what ever definition of god is being used).
