Instigator / Pro
0
1485
rating
18
debates
41.67%
won
Topic
#5703
I am agnostic, but we should still live as if God exists. (sometimes)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
This debate is about whether we should live as if God exists, not about Agnosticism.
Round 1
Thank you for accepting the debate.
Let’s start with this, are you religious or atheist? Not that it matters in terms of this debate, but I am curious from what point you are arguing.
Now let me give an example of what I mean:
Agnosticism argues that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, but also that evidence is absent to the existence of God. Agnosticism is a whole ‘nother separate debate, but let’s focus here on that we should live as if God exists, here’s why:
1. Objective morality originates from religion. We learn our basic human morals from the Ten Commandments and from the seven Noahide laws—
Here are some basic human principles we learn only from religion:
(You shall not make for yourself an idol
Honor your Father and Mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife)
Here are some basic human principles we learn only from religion:
(You shall not make for yourself an idol
Honor your Father and Mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife)
This is not evidence for the existence of God, but it is evidence for the notion that our morality as humans come from the belief in God.
Thus, I believe that society would scarcely exist — or would exist very degenerately — without religion. For example, let’s take a look at the Opening Ceremony for the Paris Olympics just a few weeks ago, mocking the Last Supper and having half-naked trannies dress in body paint. Another few examples are the Maoist China Regime, and the USSR, both designed to suppress religion under communism, and they were both wildly unsuccessful, which is what happens to a society without religion or morals.
Many atheists fail to understand this, which is why I align more with Agnosticism than with Atheism.
One more thing, I’d like to outline an example of where we should not live as if God exists, is if our life is reliant upon a miracle from the existence of God, but one should not rely on a miracle even if one does believe in God.
"I am agnostic, but we should still live as if God exists. (sometimes)"
Depending on the God we're talking about, "sometimes" is illogical and invalid according to the scriptures if we're talking about that.
"Sometimes" is doing things as you live in a half done half way fashion which is serving two masters.
Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established.
Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
In constant conflict, you're not living for God.
"Sometimes" is doing things as you live in a half done half way fashion makes you not cold or hot but lukewarm.
Revelation 3
"14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."
See the lifestyle, how you live, doing the works has to be one way or the other as the end there of is one way or the other. You're not going to be rich and poor. You follow or serve the Amen who is rich and that's what you will have .
Furthermore the true faithful master, in order to be faithful, this God will be consistent.
Philippians 1
"6 And I am certain that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns."
God doesn't work it halfway leaving it half done. God doesn't work that way so the individual that God is working in won't live that way in a "sometimes" fashion. It will continue on.
In terms of agnosticism, those that don't know what to believe including the existence of God, that is an error too. Which is the reason why "sometimes" is a big stumbling block. If you know what to believe in, you will act in accordance to that.
But straddling the fence, you don't know which way to live according to God of whom you can't say exists in your life.
No, it's one or the other. If it is the side of the fence absent of God, should you live in a certain code similarly resembling to, but would absolutely be mistaken for?
Depends on individual agenda, the laws of your country, state, etc.
"Let’s start with this, are you religious or atheist? Not that it matters in terms of this debate, but I am curious from what point you are arguing."
For the sake of the topic, I'm arguing from the agnostic standpoint being that is the most logical stance and we debate or argue in presumably the most logical of terms.
"but also that evidence is absent to the existence of God"
This is questionable right here and is very common. Is the evidence absent or is it relatively absent?
Lets's think on it. Evidence can be there. We just don't detect it. Saying there's no evidence for God, well what is the evidence for that?
"Objective morality originates from religion. "
Questionable again. What is morality? What is religion?
Gotta get to the bare bones of all this. Is not morality the system of "do's" and "don'ts"?
We don't have much time or space so I'll try to curtail as much as can be. Is not religion a system of beliefs?
There are "do's" and "don'ts" in nature, the natural world, the solar system, the universe, galaxy etc., and we have our beliefs about that.
"Here are some basic human principles we learn only from religion:
(You shall not make for yourself an idol
Honor your Father and Mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife)
This is not evidence for the existence of God, but it is evidence for the notion that our morality as humans come from the belief in God."
I suppose this is where the biggest insertion for pushback from my side will take off.
Every single one of these items mentioned whether you call it a religion or belief system, can be practiced regardless of the acknowledgement of God which I believe you do agree. Mere fact is because of the topic title saying "sometimes". You giving leeway there either because of uncertainty or some things you can't reconcile as being without the acknowledgement of God.
But every single one of those commandments mentioned, I can argue that man alone naturally came to the conclusion that follow those "do's" and "don'ts" is for the better of man.
"Thus, I believe that society would scarcely exist — or would exist very degenerately — without religion."
Does this mean living their lives as if they believe in God of the scriptures being that is the God we're referring to, does it mean that or not?
"One more thing, I’d like to outline an example of where we should not live as if God exists, is if our life is reliant upon a miracle from the existence of God, but one should not rely on a miracle even if one does believe in God."
Just something to think about being that we're talking about living regardless of acknowledging God and that is on miracles.
Miracles are out of our control, right. So anything that happens whether we believe it or not could be a miracle. It's just how we perceive it and we can't control or create one, right. So being that we don't know how it'll come , how it'll be, based on our belief, who knows how many miracles you've had that you thought not much of like an everyday occurrence.
I yield.
Round 2
"If you know what to believe in, you will act in accordance to that."
That is what Agnosticism is all about…if you don’t know what to believe in.
"Saying there's no evidence for God, well what is the evidence for that?"
You are missing the whole point — Agnosticism entails that evidence is absent on BOTH sides of the fence (there is no proof that God does or does not exist.)
"What is morality? What is religion?"
MORALITY = “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."
RELIGION = "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe."
"Does this mean living their lives as if they believe in God of the scriptures being that is the God we're referring to, does it mean that or not?"
No. It simply means that we believe (or at least, act as if we do) in ONE God who created the world and gave us morality.
You make the argument that miracles happen every day to us subconsciously. This is false. Take a look at Exodus 14: 21-22. When Miracles happen, they are obvious and evident to us.
Conclusion: Regardless of your religious beliefs, we both believe that we should live as if God exists b/c it leads to a more civilized society.
"That is what Agnosticism is all about…if you don’t know what to believe in."
When you don't know what to believe in, it is unimaginable to rely on what a person may do or how the person may live as the person doesn't know what to live by in relation to a god .
"You are missing the whole point — Agnosticism entails that evidence is absent on BOTH sides of the fence (there is no proof that God does or does not exist.)"
Actually you're missing my point. What is the evidence that there is none?
"MORALITY = “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."
RELIGION = "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.""
Are these supposed to be absolute universal definitions you subjectively came up with?
"No. It simply means that we believe (or at least, act as if we do) in ONE God who created the world and gave us morality."
You say no, so they're not living their lives according to as if God existed but they're living their lives in a system of "do's" and "don'ts" anyway .
"You make the argument that miracles happen every day to us subconsciously. This is false. Take a look at Exodus 14: 21-22. When Miracles happen, they are obvious and evident to us."
This is fallacious. Just because something is not evident TO YOU doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You mentioned the absence of evidence. But there's no evidence there is actually absence. Absence to you doesn't necessarily mean absence outright.
"Conclusion: Regardless of your religious beliefs, we both believe that we should live as if God exists b/c it leads to a more civilized society. "
I'm more so arguing instead of expressing a belief. I argue that "do's" and "don'ts" which you may call morality can be arrived at in a conclusion man can make on his own. Being that is the case, he should be able to do just as that on his own.
If you want me to demonstrate that, ask me.
The "do's" and "don'ts" of civility should be possible just by man's inmate ability of perceiving and reacting to the world. Being that you say "sometimes" in the topic, you must somewhat agree. Now we just have to get you to be consistent all the way through from some to all times.
Round 3
I won’t waste your time. I have just a few more points I’d like to make, and I’d like you to base your rebuttal on the second one for the sake of this argument.
CONTEXT: You asked me about the definition of morality and religion.
"Are these supposed to be absolute universal definitions you subjectively came up with?"
In fact, no. You asked for the definition of morality and religion so I copy-and-pasted the definition from Oxford. This point is just for clarity and to set up the next one:
CONTEXT: I remarked how there is an absence of evidence to the existence of God, yet how this is not evidence of absence; outlaying the principle of agnosticism. Then you mentioned how you don’t think there is an absence of evidence, since miracles happen every day without my particular recollection.
"You mentioned the absence of evidence. But there's no evidence there is actually absent. Absence to you doesn't necessarily mean absence outright."
I would ask you to give an example:
a) for the existence of God
b) of a miracle that happens every day to us that cannot otherwise be explained by science
If you can do those two things, you should win this debate and maybe even change my perspective.
"Then you mentioned how you don’t think there is an absence of evidence, since miracles happen every day without my particular recollection."
There is no where close to what I said. But we're at the end . Moving on.
"I would ask you to give an example:
a) for the existence of God
b) of a miracle that happens every day to us that cannot otherwise be explained by science
If you can do those two things, you should win this debate and maybe even change my perspective."
Readers, take notice that the opposing side is moving the goalpost from the topic. The topic is not prove the existence of God or miracles.
The opposing side has no rebuttal to my point about how man can come to the conclusion of morality or "do's" and "don'ts" thus we can argue excluding the statement of "we should be living as if God exists".
Even the scripture says people establish their own righteousness. Not any righteousness of God but their own.
The opposing side didn't even challenge me to demonstrate this. The opposing side ran from that and wanted to make the topic about proving God and miracles. Which if my statement was paid attention to carefully, I was talking about miracles being a matter of perspective. I made no affirmation to the existence or non existence either way.
The opposing side didn't refute my point on saying "sometimes" in the topic so there is partial agreement and the opposing side did not argue why sometimes and not all times . This is all forfeit from the opposing side.
"Objective morality originates from religion."
So the statement "We should live as if God exists" isn't necessary for the basis presented. Why? The basis or the whole point of the statement is so that we have some morality. Well we already go around establishing that of our own and have been doing so.
Case closed.
P.S.
For any lost souls : meditate on these words:
Let the words of mouth , meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight...Oh LORD my Strength, my redeemer.