A world with only agnostics would be better than the current world with its multitude of religions.

Challenge accepted, welcome to DDO, Pro. I will not waste anyone’s time by arguing against the virtue of skepticism. Clearly, critical thinking, which I consider to be the spirit of Pro’s definition, is a desirable thing to promote for anyone who cares about truth, justice, peace, and human prosperity. Nevertheless, Pro’s position in this resolution is a good deal more ambitious and problematic than I think he realizes. Perhaps the first and most obvious problem for him is that agnosticism tends not to be a stable, permanent position. I am, for example, not even remotely agnostic about whether or not there is a force of gravity, or whether the Earth is round. I used to be. When I was young, I remember being perhaps 7 or 8 maybe, I was agnostic about the truthfulness of maps. I had never been to Asia and was thus completely dependent on other people’s accounts of it. Back then I was skeptical, but open to claims. Now however, I have absolute and unshakable beliefs. I would immediately disregard any claim as being false if it contradicts my belief that the Earth is spherical rather than flat, or that Asia is an actual landmass. On a scale of certainty from 1 (not) to 100 (completely) certain, I am at least 99.999999 certain that my belief that the Earth is not flat and that Asia exists is accurate. I cannot conceive of anything which could possibly move me off of that view. I am not open minded on this. Does this mean I am too unreasonable to qualify living in this agnostics-only world you dream of? Additionally, suppose that I did have doubt about my belief, how would that mean a better world? Is the open mindedness Pro argues for only applicable to religion? If so, then why? As it stands today, the vast majority of humans are not atheist or agnostic. They believe in a religion (mostly Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim). Why the number of people subscribing to a view should have any impact of the truthfulness of that view isn’t clear, nor is the reason why the faithful masses should for some reason prefer a world without religion. Pro has a lot of work ahead of him because of the definitions he used. Since atheism and agnosticism rank very low in popularity, and most people would never vote for an atheist or agnostic president, I know how he is going to manage to convince us to think that most people would prefer to live in a world of all agnostics. Indeed, they may not need to live in an agnostic world to enjoy the same benefits. It is not only humans that mature and change, so do our tools, including religions (albeit, excruciatingly slowly for my taste). Imagine, if you would, a modern Christian in a non-denominational church who accepts evolution, sees the Bible as largely figurative, does not expect God to swoop in and save anyone with miracles, and goes about his or her life without dreaming of “the end” in which his nonbelieving neighbors will all die painfully from God’s judgment. Suppose this person happens to see all humans as brothers and sisters regardless of their beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation, and cultivates an attitude of love and gratitude. What quarrel can an atheist or agnostic even really make with such an individual’s life or behavior? How would their repositioning to a more agnostic or atheistic position improve matters? Atheist neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris is fond of pointing out that religion provides bad reasons to do good things, when good reasons are on offer. He might be right that the idea of heaven is a kind of cop out, a means of using denial to avoid ever having to actually learn how to grieve. But coping mechanisms exist for good reason; they aid in or even enable the survival of the organism. For some, the hope of an afterlife is the best they can do. Maybe some tragedies are so horrendous that there is just no other way for a person to cope than to believe that God has love for them, a purpose for them, and that everything is going to be okay. Suppose that religion is nothing more than blissful ignorance – but isn't blissful ignorance still better than the alternative of suicidal depression? Consider the story of Nick Vujicic. Tell me, my agnostic friend - how you can know so confidently that Nick’s life, and the lives of those whom he has touched, would have been better without the influence of his Christian faith? http://www.youtube.com...