Instigator / Con
0
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#3608

Your best argument for any person not to be an agnostic.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
27,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description

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.

Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to not be an agnostic?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to not be an agnostic ?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?

Let's see.

Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.

Nobody is not an agnostic no thanks to this debate, nobody.

-->
@Mall

There is another question by abhishek he lives in Reuter and he says that of Oscar beed Sahab talks about God in the later Doha's and he doesn't know who God is and why one should strive for him in him why should I answer your question you don't strive for God I do not answer your question next one how do you feel when I do not answer your question that is exactly how one feels when he is godless because you want God what's his

Name Abhishek because you want God Abba Sheikh that's why you want the answer to this question God is the answer to all questions why does anybody ever want anything because he actually wants God God is the end of all the things that you want and therefore those who have gone a little mad have said God is everything that you want that's the syllabus all you need they have said God is all you need the

Thing is you are a man of need you need you need you need and you keep needing you keep needing and you keep needing so there must certainly be something that you are asking for that is called efficient you don't have to strive for God you are striving for God are you not needy then you are spiritual don't you want food then you're a devotee if you are wanting just as much or as little as food on

Your plate or clothes to wear then you are already in the dimension of career cyber meerabhai it's just that you are centuries behind them Kabir Sahab is not 600 years behind us we are 600 years behind cabeza so we will keep roaming for 600 years in various kinds of ways and shapes and bodies till we come to the very shadow of some Kavita we are very very out of touch with ourselves we do not see how desirous we

Are if we chance upon our desirelessness then we hardly ever inquire what all the desire is really about we are extremely skilled at giving ourselves phony objects to desire if there is one speciality that is unique to man it is the skill to cheat oneself and then the woman asks the man are you cheating on me darling since 20,000 centuries he has been cheating on himself how will he ever manage to not to cheat on you go find one man or one woman who does not

Cheat on himself or herself this question is one very glorious example of that kind of cheating why must I strive for God all right don't drink water but it simply doesn't hit us that even mundane daily activities are actually incidents of a spiritual pursuit it simply doesn't strike us for a spirituality is some isolated arena we say right now we're in the early arena Val must we enter the spiritual arena that is out there away there the

Spiritual arena is not out there the spiritual arena is where you are the spiritual arena is all that is when you are chasing a man or a woman you are actually engaged in a spiritual act just a misdirected act but he will cheat yourself and you will not accept that it is really Christian that you want and therefore you are chasing that man you said oh I'm doing something worldly something material and I do not know why there should be something spiritual you

Will with such a apparently no scent and flat face say no but you know I all I want is a man in flesh and blood no you don't want a man in flesh and blood you have had seven point five men in flesh and blood could they appease you you are looking for a krishna no you will not take with that huh so what then is a discotheque it is nothing but Kirsten gone wrong nothing you wanted him through music and through holy company but instead of

Divine music he got hooked to some rapper singing Patiala peg and instead of holy company you got hooked to a man or woman to demonstrative of all the holes there is no place that you are actually not approaching with the will to be liberated it's half a veil actually you know because we are fragmented it's not a total it's half of it so it doesn't succeed it succeeds only in maintaining itself not fulfilling itself you

Understand the difference between these two will succeeding in maintaining itself versus will succeeding in fulfilling itself fulfillment of will is the disappearance of will you decide what kind of success do you want you want to maintain yourself that is one success in prakruti the definition of success is continued to be maintained maintained but your spirit does not consider that a success just as maintaining

And defending pimples on your face is hardly a mark of success oh is it maintaining a cancerous tumor in your stomach is it success but Prakriti just wants maintenance continuation that which is must continue to be and if it goes away then it must leave something else behind it sounds like cancer

-->
@Novice_II

"Me: How do you know the laws of logic are constant and hold true?"

This is an interesting philosophical debate to be had. Although not many philosopher say it ends in "hmmm idk"

It is more accurate to say that logic works along the lines of pattern detection, necessity (via contradictions) aka a priori, and order. Without said pattern recognition, there would be no order, no patterns, and then no observation nor life. It's directly contradictory to question the legitimacy of logic while using logic. It is like trying to disprove the legitimacy of maths using maths.

-->
@Intelligence_06

He'll figure something out (presumably).

-->
@Mall

This is a question.

What are you Con to? That Pro's argument is not the best one he could have given?