[OLD] The Challenge Thread

[Silver Guard]

Actually agnostic doesnt mean "dont know", in the sense of being undecided.

Actualy, yes it does, it means:
"The idea that we dont know, and we wont know."
Which is being undecided

Which is how I feel about religion, I think theres a god but no one has it right.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with religion, it is purely a belief, rather then institution system. You sir are a Theist or Deist, neither of which can be Agnostic

Besides, how do you argue faith?

You can argue the rationality of certain aspects of faith, and you can argue the effects, causes, and conclusions of faith. You can debate its morals and its laws

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Anyone here actually looking for an historical debate?

[fahrenheit]

Actualy, yes it does, it means:
"The idea that we dont know, and we wont know."
Which is being undecided

No, the idea that we dont know and wont know isnt undecided. Its the idea of those two facts.

They are very similar, being undecided and knowing that we wont know, which I can only differentiate between the two that one is a state of confusion.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with religion, it is purely a belief, rather then institution system. You sir are a Theist or Deist, neither of which can be Agnostic

Is religion not a belief?
Besides, agnosticism is a belief about religion. And taking a look back, I would consider myself a theist with the belief in God, but I hold a agnostic point of view in that we dont and cannot know any more than that.

You can argue the rationality of certain aspects of faith, and you can argue the effects, causes, and conclusions of faith. You can debate its morals and its laws

That isnt what he was reffering too, he was talking about the validity of faith.

[Silver Guard]

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[2]

What I consider Agnostic are the weak and strong ones above. The agnostic theist is a theist, the agnostic atheist is an atheist.
Religion goes beyond belief, it becomes a society, a culture unto itself.

[fahrenheit]

So your post was to define what I said earlier?

[Silver Guard]

Theist: Someone who belives in a personal God
Deist: Someone who believes in a non-personal God
Agnostic: Someone who is uncertain Someone who does not believe either way, either dosn't care or knows he dosn't know
Atheist: Someone who believes God does not exist

Therfore you are a theist. Full stop

[Professor420]

Perhaps you can debate this in the god damned fight club.

[Sétanta]

:

Anyone here actually looking for an historical debate?

Pick a subject and I will fight ye.

[fahrenheit]

Therfore you are a theist. Full stop

Which is what I already said, what are you trying to do?

[Shaun]

I want to fight Moralman about Fornication, and why I believe that its perfectly 'moral'.
He can post first, if he accepts this challenge.

[yonosa]

So is someone going to accept my challenge? I see you two are arguing about religion amongst yourself while neither of you are honoring my challenge

[fahrenheit]

So is someone going to accept my challenge? I see you two are arguing about religion amongst yourself while neither of you are honoring my challenge

Send Garb the information, and we'll fight.

[Professor420]

yonosa, if fahrenheit doesn't come through, I'll gladly debate you. What is it you want to debate again? The rationality of religion or somesuch thing?

[TheKwas]

I suppose that I shall extend an open challenge on any issue that is economical, biological, or religious (preferablely with me on the atheist side, but I would actually enjoy attempting to argue from the theistic side as well) in nature.

[yonosa]

yeah Ill take whoever on on any subject it doesn't matter, I love debate and will take multiple people on

[TheKwas]

You already had two people accept your challenge, I wouldn't want to cut the line.

[Professor420]

Well I will not be able to proceed until at earliest the week of the 16th.

[Tom Paine]

I'm issuing a challenge, general, about the good done by major charities (of the Oxfam variety) in the third world... I'll take the "little" side.

[Denny Crane!]

Ozy that is a bit of restricted debate. They do some good and some bad, I would happily argue against the idea of charities and their operating practices but I couldn't deny they do some good....

I can't imagine arriving at anything but a middle ground consensus no matter which side I debated that one.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

I can, having seen the work of smaller charities and having discussed the matter with Ugandans...