CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
32
I Say Yes You Say No
Debate Score:53
Arguments:50
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I Say Yes (20)
 
 You Say No (27)

Debate Creator

1JTS(14) pic



The agnostic is the most rational stance to hold. Is the agnostic stance most logical?

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Being that the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven, The most logical position to be in as agnostic.

That's purely agnostic by the way. .

Really as simple as can be.
Let me know if I missed something.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

I Say Yes

Side Score: 21
VS.

You Say No

Side Score: 32
1 point

The agnostic position rationalizes that currently there is evidence or a fact concerning the existence of God.

The fact is that the reality of a god is inconclusive. Their position totally sways on evidence alone. That is the basis of the scientific method, empirical data , research and etc.

All other positions that take a belief in the positive or negative are less rational based on the previous mentioned fact regarding the agnostic role.

That is the summary and size of it. That'll do for now.

Side: I Say Yes

I completely agree with you and have considered myself agnostic for several decades now.

That said, in agnosticism there is a danger to assume that, because the question of God can't be answered definitively one way or another, that must therefore mean the probabilities are equal. That isn't the case. In particular, organised religions are so specific in their beliefs that it automatically minimises the probability they can be correct.

Side: I Say Yes
1 point

Why should a person believe in or reject a god's existence?

The bottom line of it all is if you just don't know , you don't know. That would include not knowing what to believe.

Side: I Say Yes
NomLovesMarx(310) Clarified
1 point

Because Yeshua loves, you, and He died on the cross and rose from the dead, for you.

Side: I Say Yes
2 points

Because Yeshua loves, you, and He died on the cross and rose from the dead, for you.

Get some help. You are crazy.

Side: You Say No
Jody(1607) Disputed
1 point

Because Yeshua loves, you, and He died on the cross and rose from the dead, for you.

Why did he have to die on a cross for mankindโ€™s sin ?Why not just forgive everyone?

What sort of a sick fucker of a father would ask his son to die on a cross for mankindโ€™s sin

Side: You Say No
1 point

For those confused about fictitious characters being real like the leprechaun or unicorn or superman, that's all been proven to have been made up. Doesn't compare to the inconclusive existence of God. So therefore the most rationality of anything concerns the most science and evidence. The most evidence we have to date over anything is the inconclusive nature of existence for a god. That's where the agnostic view comes into play

Side: I Say Yes
2 points

For those confused about fictitious characters being real like the leprechaun or unicorn or superman, that's all been proven to have been made up.

No it hasn't. You can't prove these things don't exist and hence you can't prove anybody made them up. It's the exact same thing with God.

Doesn't compare to the inconclusive existence of God.

Are you stupid? You are literally making decisions about fantasy concepts based solely on what your personal bias is towards those concepts. Leprechauns have been "proven to be made up", but God simply has an "inconclusive existence". I mean, just look at the vast difference in language you are using to describe two different fantasy beings which have an identical lack of evidence supporting them.

Side: You Say No
1 point

"No it hasn't. You can't prove these things don't exist and hence you can't prove anybody made them up. It's the exact same thing with God."

Oh excuse me. What are the origins of these made up characters, the unicorn, superman and leprechaun?

"Are you stupid?"

Am I stupid to what ?

"You are literally making decisions about fantasy concepts based solely on what your personal bias is towards those concepts. Leprechauns have been "proven to be made up", but God simply has an "inconclusive existence". I mean, just look at the vast difference in language you are using to describe two different fantasy beings which have an identical lack of evidence supporting them."

What's the evidence that they're fantastical? See, just pay attention to the words you're using. If there is no evidence for or against what we're talking about here, it's inconclusive. Do you follow what I'm saying?

But you use the word fantasy. In order to identify something as fantasy, there's evidence of it being such. How else do you know it is?

That's what I said from the beginning, made up unlike God unless you or anybody has proof otherwise.

Side: I Say Yes
1 point

Oh excuse me. What are the origins of these made up characters, the unicorn, superman and leprechaun?

You've asserted the answer to your own question within the question you contemptibly empty-headed dolt. If you are going to answer your own questions then what do you need me for? You cannot PROVE that any of your named characters were "made up". You can only prove that people have written about them in a fictional setting.

Am I stupid to what ?

Nevermind. It was rhetorical.

Side: You Say No
1 point

Where did those people that wrote about these characters in a fictional setting get them from?

This is quite laughable. It's obvious to try and lump everything together to try to make it all ridiculous. But we have to be honest with this information here. You can't know to call something fantasy and be correct without proof of it being so.

This is why agnostics exist. There's no proof of God being real nor proof that this is fantasy.

Side: I Say Yes
1 point

There's certainly a lot to be said for 'hedging your bets' or 'leaving all options open' but in the case of religion one should either believe emphatically in the existence of their God or unashamedly reject the presence of some omnipotent, supernatural creature.

If one takes the time to dispassionately research the available evidence to establish or shun the reality of a God one must come to the only logical conclusion that there ??????????????????????????.

Side: You Say No
1 point

i suppose ur agnostic about unicorns and leprechauns too. ffs.

Side: You Say No
2 points

i suppose ur agnostic about unicorns and leprechauns too. ffs.

Can you prove unicorns and leprechauns don't exist you retarded bitch? Maybe in your world we reject things we don't like the sound of without any supporting evidence. Not in mine.

Side: I Say Yes
Jace(5159) Disputed
1 point

i actually quite like the sound of unicorns and leprechauns. however, i have no use for suspending disbelief in every baseless and bizarre notion that someone else cooks up in their imagination. i find definitive opinions overwhelmingly more useful than agnostic indeterminacy. its not like u practice ur agnosticism anyways; it's just a desperate veneer you maintain for urself to as a feeble assurance against ur transparently low self-esteem.

Side: You Say No
1 point

It's a rational stance, and a logical one, but that doesn't qualify it for the 'most' anything. People can realize there is no hard evidence to prove or disprove God and still believe in Him or not. I suppose it depends in the end on what you want to believe.

Side: You Say No
BurritoLunch(6608) Clarified
1 point

People can realize there is no hard evidence to prove or disprove God and still believe in Him or not.

That is true but it is also misleading because one could make the exact same argument about any invention of the human mind. If I wrote a serious book arguing that there was a secret intelligent banana who meticulously planned every major world event there would be no hard evidence to prove or disprove it, and you would be equally free to either believe it or not believe it. But CLEARLY that story has come from my own imagination.

Side: I Say Yes
Mint_tea(4624) Clarified
2 points

Does the secret intelligent banana follow the cult of the Spaghetti Monster from space? What a combo that could make! :D

Side: I Say Yes