azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Actually I used to assume the best when dealing with "agnostic/atheistic Christians" - that is until I started to see them consistently deny just about everything Jesus said. That's when I began to notice this new "wolf in sheep's clothing" trend. Do you have any examples?Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man. Nope. Again, assuming the worst of others. There are many non-Christians who believe that Jesus himself didn't claim to be Christ, but that said title was attributed to him by others, and therefore quotes regarding his divinity were attributed to him by others. Again, I find it silly, but that doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring the more plausible explanations in favor of painting people you disagree with in a negative light.And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?No it doesn't. If you went down the street and asked everyone how many of them had heard of Jesus, everyone would say they had. If you then asked them if they had heard of Hammurabi's Code, most would say they haven't.Again, assuming the worst in those you disagree with whilst ignoring the obvious explanation.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

No, I don't have any examples ready to cite. That's just my personal experience online. I've encountered it everywhere I've debated.If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true? They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves.I ignore these so-called obvious explanations because they're not logical. It makes no sense to identify with someone who claimed to be God, just because you like some of His other "secular" teachings. Why pick anyone to identify with? Why not just say you believe in the "golden rule", or some other vanilla concept? Why the need to identify with someone who claimed to be God, when they don't believe Jesus is God in the first place. The obvious explanation here is they're simply trying to subvert the argument by becoming "one of us". That would also explain why I've never met them in real life, just online in debates.Could I be a YEC Darwinian evolutionist? Or would that be inconsistent and illogical?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

No, I don't have any examples ready to cite. That's just my personal experience online. I've encountered it everywhere I've debated.If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true?It's the difference between theology and philosophy. One can easily say his opinions on helping the poor are admirable without thinking he was the son of God. Honestly I'm really confused as to why that troubles you.They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves.Why would they be followers of Christ if they aren't Christian? Saying you think Jesus had some good ideas doesn't mean you are his disciple. It also doesn't indicate they are "followers of themselves". That sort of derisive rhetoric seems common amongst Christians towards those who believe in non-religiously based morality, but you seem better than that, so I'm confused as to why you included it.I ignore these so-called obvious explanations because they're not logical. It makes no sense to identify with someone who claimed to be God, just because you like some of His other "secular" teachings. I have said this to you already: They do not "identify with" Jesus. I can say that Marx had some good points in his critique on capitalism, but that does not mean I am a Marxist. Why pick anyone to identify with? They aren't.Why not just say you believe in the "golden rule", or some other vanilla concept? I don't know how to respond to this without repeating myself ad nauseum. Saying you agree with some things Jesus said regarding philosophy does not mean you identify with him theologically.The obvious explanation here is they're simply trying to subvert the argument by becoming "one of us"Not only is that not obvious, it is also utterly illogical. Saying they agree with some of what he said doesn't subvert any argument, it doesn't indicate that they are trying to be one of you, it essentially does nothing of what you are saying.That would also explain why I've never met them in real life, just online in debates.Only if you believe you personal experience is a true representation of the entire world. Could I be a YEC Darwinian evolutionist? Or would that be inconsistent and illogical?It would be inconsistent, illogical, and entirely irrelevant. Being atheist and agreeing with some of what Jesus said on issues other than his divinity are not mutually exclusive. Being a Young Earth Creationist and believing Darwinian evolution aren't.It seems to me that you want to think the worst about atheists.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Stop moving the goal posts. We're discussing "agnostic Christians" (and/or "atheistic Christians"). You're off-topic when you ask me: "Why would they be followers of Christ if they aren't Christian". You ask that again and again so I'd refer you to the title of this debate and let us get back on track. "Can agnostics be Christian?"Now if you still maintain that they're not Christian, then I guess they're just agnostic. That at least makes sense to me.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

I'm not the one who moved the goal post, you are. This started by me responding to the quote form you: "In my opinion, this seems to be a growing trend of atheists to attempt to garner a bit more credibility, by attaching themselves to the "Christian" label. We fundies have special logic-deciphering glasses that allow us to see through all this bs though."Which was then followed up by: "Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man. And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?"As well as: "If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true? They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves." (and the rest of that post).That means we are not discussing agnostic or atheist (note: or, not and, as they are two different groups) Christians, we are talking about how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said. That is entirely on topic with the discussion you and I are having.The fact that you so thoroughly changed the subject from the discussion you and I are having does seem rather suspect however given how it apparently ended.As for the topic we weren't having regarding the topic of the debate, one can not be an Atheist Christian (a belief in god is clearly a requirement for a religion predicated upon a belief in god), but on can theoretically be an Agnostic Christian. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, and thus an Agnostic Christian would be one who believes in God and the divinity of Christ, but isn't entirely sure it's true. I'd go so far as to say that there are tens of millions of Agnostic Christians out there, we simply don't call them that because agnosticism is acknowledged within Christianity (There's no point in faith if you are gnostic in your beliefs).Now please take your own advice and stop moving the goal posts and stay on topic.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

How old are you? I'm in my 40's and generally don't get that kind of pedantic response from my peers. All of my quotes you cited were criticizing the foolish notion of "agnostic Christians". That's plainly obvious to me even now and it's New Year's eve (if you get my drift).You're the one who's had to add the following derailment (not I): "how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said"I was pointing out to you (but it seems to have missed it's target) the folly of that notion. There logically cannot be agnostic/atheistic Christians. It's a logical contradiction. Like a YEC Darwinian evolutionist. Also you're very mistaken on the definition of the word "agnostic". You seem to think it means someone who's just not sure of the truth. Some synonyms for "agnostic" are "unbeliever", "nonbeliever", "disbeliever". It's a relatively new word which was intended to mean that the existence and nature of God was unknowable. However, we believers in Christ say we know Him. It's a personal relationship with God Himself. Being a believer and non-believer in Christ is not logical. It violates the law of non-contradiction. This is the point I've been arguing and will continue to argue: the logical fallacy of being an agnostic Christian.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

How old are you? I'm in my 40's and generally don't get that kind of pedantic response from my peers. All of my quotes you cited were criticizing the foolish notion of "agnostic Christians". That's plainly obvious to me even now and it's New Year's eve (if you get my drift).Hmmm 40+ year old man, with a little boy for his account picture... Hmmmmmmmmm........... MOMMY CALL DE COPS!You're the one who's had to add the following derailment (not I): "how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said"Sounds like someone likes pointing fingers... Are you sure your 40+?I was pointing out to you (but it seems to have missed it's target) the folly of that notion. There logically cannot be agnostic/atheistic Christians. It's a logical contradiction. Like a YEC Darwinian evolutionist.Protestant Evolutionism (unofficial name) is rather uncommon but still a belief, Evolutionism has nothing to say about the existence of God(s) but rather that God(s) or a natural creation (Big Bang, and theories of such) created a universe, that later had some evolving done. Protestant Evolutionism (still unofficial name) is the belief that God created the universe, and evolutionism created the animal life (do you understand it now?).Also you're very mistaken on the definition of the word "agnostic". You seem to think it means someone who's just not sure of the truth. Some synonyms for "agnostic" are "unbeliever", "nonbeliever", "disbeliever".Ah, but here is were I find the biggest mistakes with you, TO THE DICTIONARY!Agnostic=A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God. (Oxford Dictionary Of English)What you might be thinking of is an Athiest.Atheist=A person who disbelievers or lacks faith in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Dictionary Of English)It's a relatively new word which was intended to mean that the existence and nature of God was unknowable. However, we believers in Christ say we know Him. It's a personal relationship with God Himself.Contradiction at its finest, sure it makes my last reply irrelevant but still.Being a believer and non-believer in Christ is not logical. It violates the law of non-contradiction. This is the point I've been arguing and will continue to argue: the logical fallacy of being an agnostic Christian.Agnostic Christian can simply mean that he believes in God, but believes there never could be proof of God (which is where the whole faith stuff comes to play).2016 IN APROX 40 mins IN CENTRAL TIMEZONE
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Here you go sport, this is the dictionary I often use: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t Also, when I mentioned a YEC Darwinian evolutionist, I made the assumption you'd be able to see the irony in that. Pay closer attention to the YE part next time.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Okay, the definition matches to mine, but then there are the synonyms. I don't think you know the meaning of the word since you believe that synonyms mean that they are exactly alike.No, synonyms mean that they are either exactly or that they are near the same, unbeliever, and non-believer are near the same.Unbeliever=Someone who has no religious beliefs.Non-Believer=A person that does not believe in something, especially when it comes to religious faithsBoth of which are exact synonyms to Atheist, but near synonyms to Agnostic. Gotta love the English language.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

You're debating your own strawman right now. I know what a synonym is.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Then why would you claim that unbeliever and agnostic mean the same thing?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Because they do. Do I really need to now provide a definition for the word "synonym"? Dang public school systems, amirite?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym?s=t "Synonym"1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity or Wall Street for U.S. financial markets; metonym.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

or nearly the same meaningSo if you didn't go through public school, what's your excuse? :P
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Well I am a product of public schools, so that's my excuse. : )
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

It really doesn't get much dumber then that.What it would look like if your correct:Agnostic: A person who disbelieves in God(s).Unbeliever: Someone who has no beliefs, particularly in religion. What it looks like in reality:Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God, a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.Unbeliever: Someone who has no beliefs, particularly in religion.That would mean that it is near synonym.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

"Near synonym"? Are we coining our own phrases now? It sounds more like you just don't agree with the real definitions of these words, so you need to bend and stretch your way to more favorable ones. A type of semantic-Twister.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Synonyms by definition are not always exactly the same, as you have already demonstrated.Which means the definition you are calling him out on works in his favor, not yours. The phrase he coined referred to those that are close to the same.As you said, "It sounds more like you just don't agree with the real definitions of these words, so you need to bend and stretch your way to more favorable ones. A type of semantic-Twister" :P
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Well this starting to feel like I've descended into a type of pedantic hell, but I'll just state my position in another way:Christian: Someone who believes Jesus is the risen Christ, that He is God and grows to know Him (aka the "walk").Agnostic: Someone who believes that God, or even the existence of a god or gods, is unknowable. In my opinion, the two are incompatible.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

This is indeed a pedantic hell, because you are ignoring what I am saying entirely.I figure one more repetition is all I have in me: Agnosticism itself does not inherently require "Pragmatic Agnosticism" (not my term), where one believes that God(s) are unknowable. If you focus on that very narrow type of agnosticism (which is a minority of agnostics, by the way), then you are right. If you don't, and you recognize that agnosticism means without knowledge (again, look at the roots), then one can indeed be Agnostic in the nature of their Christianity.Can you please at least try to respond to that, instead of leading us down the path of continued repetition?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Well your opinion is incorrect because an Agnostic Christian can simply mean a Christian who believes that God and the existence of God or gods is unknowable. I don't know how that's so difficult to understand. I guess maybe it's because you skipped public school.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

It's because he is only thinking of the definition of Agnostic within the context of a noun (as in an Agnostic), as opposed to recognizing the difference between an Agnostic and Agnosticism*, which can occur in conjunction with different religious beliefs.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Let's get back on track. If you want to claim I was the one who got us side-tracked, so be it - this is getting to be a bore. "Can agnostics be Christian? "I say no, because to be a Christian is to follow the Christ, who identified as God himself. But to be an agnostic is to be an unbeliever, and that the nature and existence of God is unknowable.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t Your condensed position appears to be that certain teachings of Jesus can be secularized and one can still claim to be a Christian, without all that "god stuff". Is that it in a nutshell?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

"Can agnostics be Christian? "I say no, because to be a Christian is to follow the Christ, who identified as God himself. But to be an agnostic is to be an unbeliever, and that the nature and existence of God is unknowable.My god, I responded to this half a dozen times already. Just because one is an agnostic does not mean one is an unbeliever, as agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. I see no reason to repeat the exact same thing I have said half a dozen times to which you have yet to actually respond with anything beyond a repetition. Your condensed position appears to be that certain teachings of Jesus can be secularized and one can still claim to be a Christian, without all that "god stuff". Is that it in a nutshell?That was dealing with our conversation about non-Christians approving of some things Christ said, not about agnostic Christians.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Yes but you keep responding with the same illogical response. I'm attempting to show the contradictions in your position, but I'm thinking your presuppositions are getting in the way. Agnosticism doesn't deal with knowledge at all - the opposite actually - it's the lack of knowledge (of God). A Christian doesn't lack knowledge of God at all, thus the contradiction.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Yes but you keep responding with the same illogical response. You haven't once demonstrated that it is illogical, you just keep declaring it to be so.I'm attempting to show the contradictions in your position, but I'm thinking your presuppositions are getting in the way. No, you are showing contradictions in something else entirely.Agnosticism doesn't deal with knowledge at all - the opposite actually - it's the lack of knowledge (of God). That...is a very strange sentence. You say it doesn't deal with knowledge, then you say it does deal with knowledge. Gnosticism and Agnosticism lie along the spectrum of knowledge, while atheism and theism lie along the spectrum of belief. One's religious beliefs can combine those.Christians don't lack belief, but some do lack knowledge in the way I have already said. Since you completely ignored my explanation, I'll repeat it: There are many Christians who have grown up Christian, and would like Christianity to be right, but aren't quite sure. In fact, that uncertainty is an inherent aspect of Christianity, hence "faith". In that sense, a degree of Agnosticism is recognized within the religion itself. That said, I wouldn't say that is sufficient to call them Agnostic. What would be sufficient is the number of Christians who go to church, believe in theism, but aren't entirely sure about the divinity of Jesus or the Bible. You may find them ridiculous, but there are plenty of people like that.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

You regard knowledge and the lack of knowledge to be the same? That would explain a lot. "atheism and theism lie along the spectrum of belief" - do you really believe that? That's interesting because most atheists I deal with don't regard their worldview to be a belief at all.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

You regard knowledge and the lack of knowledge to be the same? That would explain a lot. That's a pathetic straw man, Sceathers. I said agnosticism deals with knowledge, and it does."atheism and theism lie along the spectrum of belief" - do you really believe that? A-theism: Without belief in god.Theism: Belief in god.They along the spectrum pertaining to belief. That does not make A-theism (without belief) itself a belief.I'm disappointed in the reliance on straw men, Sceathers.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

You say atheism lies along the "spectrum of belief", but is not itself a belief. Most atheists would say atheism lies outside the "spectrum of belief" entirely. You might get your atheist card revoked if you keep this up. Why wouldn't you instead say that they both lie along the spectrum of non-belief? Why did you choose the word "belief"? Why the positive, instead of the negative?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

You say atheism lies along the "spectrum of belief", but is not itself a belief. Yes. Atheism deals with belief, as does theism. They both lie along the spectrum of belief. Most atheists would say atheism lies outside the "spectrum of belief" entirely.Only if they weren't paying attention to what I am saying.You might get your atheist card revoked if you keep this up. I'm not an atheist, so I'm fine with that.Why wouldn't you instead say that they both lie along the spectrum of non-belief?Because Agnosticism and Gnosticism don't deal with belief, they deal with knowledge, while Atheism and Theism deal with belief. Seriously, I have given you the root meanings of the words that easily demonstrate what I am saying.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

When I asked why you didn't instead say that they lie along the spectrum of non-belief, I was referring directly to your earlier claim re: atheism and theism (not agnosticism). So that is still my question to you.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

It's rather simple if you look at the definitions:Theism: Belief in godA-theism: Without belief in God.If they had to do with non-belief, Theism would be "Lacking non belief" and atheism would be "having non belief", which not only is just silly, but doesn't fit the roots of the words.You might want to think again about accusing others of semantic twister, by the way :P
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

You're a bit jealous that I came up with the phrase "semantic twister", aren't you? You can borrow it all you want, it's free of charge. A bit off topic, but at this point it probably doesn't matter: Given your definitions of Atheism and Theism, do you suppose there could be an atheistic Theist?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

My definitions (the definitions, by the way) are mutually exclusive, hence a-theism (without theism).One could be a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Theist, but not an Agnostic Gnostic or an Atheistic Theist.The roots are key.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Agnosticism is a contradiction. You must first know a whole lot about God in order to conclude that God is unknowable. So Agnosticism is for cowards.