The Instigator
Dragonfang
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 32371
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Dragonfang

Pro

agnostic ["gG2;n;4;st=8;k]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty

a"the"ism (G2;e=8; _2;iG6;=8;z əm)
n.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

The other part of the argument shall be an Agnostic atheists, AKA. the "Don't know" atheists who believe that there is absolutely no way to know that God existed, and for that reason they are atheist.
Note that this is different from gnostic atheists who claim they know God does not exist.

I am going to attempt to prove that this principle makes little to no logical sense. Thus it is false and can't be relied on.

R1 will be for acceptance.
It is expected for the arguments to be logical since the topic's title carries a philosophic theme.

Btw. I am NOT an atheist, NOR I am a Christian or a young earth creationist.
Citrakayah

Con

I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Dragonfang

Pro

I must apologize for the delay, for I was busy with other debates.


Negative/Weak/Soft Atheism is wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.
Basically, they lack both knowledge and affirmation whether God exists or not. Therefore, some atheists of this type believes that this type of atheism is the best doctrine between the arguments of religious people and the arguments of strong atheists.



In my opinion, the doctrine of weak atheists is indeed a strange one, they consider all knowledge concerning reality impossible, it is essentially relativism, which holds the belief that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. An other format for this statement is: "The truth is that the truth is relative". But then, how can this be the truth? Logically, the doctrine of weak atheism collapses itself. It assumes that humans know enough about reality, which allows us to affirm that nothing can be known about reality.
The previous argument alone have everything needed to falsify weak atheism. Simply, because if they knew something about reality, it would be contradictory to claim nothing can be known about reality. It assumes knowledge about reality to disbelieve in any knowledge about reality.
A non-paradoxical example is that it is not possible to know the difference between right and wrong without gaining enough knowledge to distinguish the difference between them in a proposition, therefore we can choice to agree or disagree with the proposition, but we can't conclude that it would be impossible to choose rationally. If the truth is not definitive, no statement can be compatible with the truth. Therefore an individual can not know the truth about the relative truth. That would be setting a line that stops us from passing the truth, but no one can draw boundaries before passing them and knowing what is behind them, you cannot compare between relative truth and absolute truth without knowing them both.

To summarize this, saying that the truth is that there is no truth is virtual, since that statement cannot be true without existing.



    • Everyone who knows that he is in doubt about something, knows a truth, and in this regard he knows he is certain. Therefore he is certain about a truth.

    • Everyone who doubts if there is a truth, has a true thing of which he does not doubt. Furthermore, there is no true thing which is not true by truth. For truths are not made, they are found, therefore truths exists before they are found.

    • Consequently whoever for whatever reason may doubt, as long as he does not doubt the existence of truth.




This attitude cannot be a permanent rule for life, it could last for a period of time multiple times. Saying that someone would be born and would die under "I don't know" would be contradictory, that attitude would not last due to the nature of humans. If skepticism and misunderstanding and rejection was a comfortable state, there would be no advancement in human life. Our nature requires us to seek facts and follow it.



Philosophically:
Weak atheism is a non-disciplined principle that have no clear explanation for anything. It is a shallow, naive, lazy judgement on a deep and critical issue.
It is a skeptic, nihilistic, sophistic, absurdist, demagogic doctrine. Science is in advancement, and it is dedicated to discover laws of the universe. Thus, weak atheism, absurdity, and similar paradoxical beliefs can never exist rationally.
Citrakayah

Con

My opponent raise some good points, but I do believe his central premise is flawed, and I'll attempt to illustrate how below.

An all-powerful reality warping entity is fundamentally impossible to disprove--any reality warping entity is simply capable of warping reality so that the test never happened, assuming one manages to get a positive result in the first place. Memories can be removed, records destroyed, history itself rewound. If the entity couldn't do it, it's not all powerful.

Now, I would like to draw a parallel. Let's talk about spiders, specifically purple-polka-dotted spiders from Alpha Centauri. There's no proof they exist. There's no reason to think they exist. So why should we think they exist?

Belief that something does not exist, I posit, falls into two categories: active and passive. Active is actively going about thinking 'this does not exist'. It is similar to active belief in this fashion. Passive disbelief is simply, when one considers issues relating to the thing being believed/disbelieved, working from the assumption that it does not exst.

Moreover, if one believes it is prudent to believe that it does not exist, either from probability or there being no reason to believe it at all, one could well, after considering the issue, decide that they did not believe that the entity in question existed.


Weak atheism, as my opponent has described it "not believing in the existence of deities but not explicitly asserting that they do not exist" is indeed a very sensible concept. The weak atheist looks at the world and sees no evidence of deities. Therefore he or she has not reason to believe in them. Therefore the weak atheist does not believe in deities.

To comapre this with the spiders: A person who does not believe in spiders from Alpha Centauri looks at Alpha Centauri through a telescope. They see no spiders. They look at astronomical data. No evidence of spiders. There is no reason for them to believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri. Therefore they do not believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri.
Debate Round No. 2
Dragonfang

Pro

Unfortunely, I am incapable of sharing Con's opinion. I do not believe his argument brought a lot of sense. This may look harsh I know it does. I have nothing but respect to Con, but there is nothing I can do against a fallacy ahoy.


The first argument stumpled me... What would Con want to prove? How long did it take him to conjure it? It basically goes like this:
  • God is omnipotent, thus God is a reality wrapper.
  • Consequently, God shall prevent the discovery of fclearly prove that he dnot exist. So, God is going to fully capitalize reality wrapping in order to combat the fact the he does not exist.
  • Thus, reality is changed everytime God is proven to not exist in orer to hide the evidence.
  • If God does not do that, then he is not god.

Oh man... There is at least six or seven fallaciesere is no need to get into them. Lets ignore the many logical err assume this formal logic is true. Then the e is settled since it proves Godxists. This is one of the most ridiculous definition of d I ever heard, It could even be the worst. God is not random, the universe is not a random playgroud. God's omnipotent means he is perfect, he is-knowing and wise. The ct that we feel our knowledge is inferior although no animal on earth possesses it proves that there is a source of unlimited knowledge. most annoying fallacy for me is when an argument leads to no conclusion, it usually comes with a multi-fallacy pack.

Philosiphically, atheists cannot disprove that this life is nothing but a long lucid dream, thus they will have to depend on blind faith and irrationiality in order to live.

Phew... The worst part of your argument is over!

The sci-fi spider's existance all depends on the concept of reality really. If it was philosiphaclly proven that the idea of thoughts and imagination physically contribute to reality physically is logical, then it is possible. But that was not proven, and I don't think it will ever be proven.

However, you can't just equalize something to an other, the process must be done carefully after comparing all basic aspects, we don't want to spawn fallacies used to manipulate emotions and prejudice rather than relying on logic. As you may have guessed, a "fallacy from ignorance" is complicated, unlike most fallacieusing the lack of evidence to disprove something is not always a fallacy. I believe that the best way to distinguish between arguments from igorance is by determiting wheter the subjet is logically sound or not. Can your "No evidence of deitiebe compared to "No evidence of gravity" or "No evidence black holes"? We witness teffect, we don't witne them directly. Which brings us to my next point.

I am guessing atheists have nothing to do with metaphysics,everything to do with materalism. It is quiet silly to believe that everythinge explained like that. Human rights is a purely metaphysical, athes should have nothing to do with it, since from a material point of view are certainly not equal. Without it, we can't explain human's morality, choices, purpose. So I wouldn't count on priests of technocracy to explain how the world works. What is the probability that this world is random? What is the evidence of morality? What makes us alive? These cannot be tested, these get concluded.

In the end, God either exists or he don't. You still consider that ignorance is the ultimate answer, although I explained that this is impossible and you seemed to agree.

My opponent raise some good points, but I do believe his central premise is flawed, and I'll attempt to illustrate how below.

An all-powerful reality warping entity is fundamentally impossible to disprove--any reality warping entity is simply capable of warping reality so that the test never happened, assuming one manages to get a positive result in the first place. Memories can be removed, records destroyed, history itself rewound. If the entity couldn't do it, it's not all powerful.

Now, I would like to draw a parallel. Let's talk about spiders, specifically purple-polka-dotted spiders from Alpha Centauri. There's no proof they exist. There's no reason to think they exist. So why should we think they exist?

Belief that something does not exist, I posit, falls into two categories: active and passive. Active is actively going about thinking 'this does not exist'. It is similar to active belief in this fashion. Passive disbelief is simply, when one considers issues relating to the thing being believed/disbelieved, working from the assumption that it does not exst.

Moreover, if one believes it is prudent to believe that it does not exist, either from probability or there being no reason to believe it at all, one could well, after considering the issue, decide that they did not believe that the entity in question existed.


Weak atheism, as my opponent has described it "not believing in the existence of deities but not explicitly asserting that they do not exist" is indeed a very sensible concept. The weak atheist looks at the world and sees no evidence of deities. Therefore he or she has not reason to believe in them. Therefore the weak atheist does not believe in deities.

To comapre this with the spiders: A person who does not believe in spiders from Alpha Centauri looks at Alpha Centauri through a telescope. They see no spiders. They look at astronomical data. No evidence of spiders. There is no reason for them to believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri. Therefore they do not believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri.
Citrakayah

Con

Citrakayah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dragonfang

Pro

Currently, skepticism became the basis of dealing with anything we don't know or is missing from direct observation. It judges the validity of something from not understanding it, and some would even consider it a scientific method.
The mind can be divided into a scientific method and logic, they are the basis of thinking and conception of materialistic and non-materialistic reality we witness and feel. For any mental process to take place, previous knowledge about that reality must exist, and without such knowledge no mental process will happen in any thinker. For example: A child will not be afraid to place his hand on fire although mind and reality (fire) do exist, and that is because he lacks knowledge about the properties of fire. Mind alone cannot complete mental processes as it also requires knowledge. Mental processes have nothing to do with opinions, it is about connecting previous knowledge about reality, previous opinions are not a factor in any mental process. So the two things we need is mind and knowledge.
Logic can prove something exists, but the error is when logic is used to identify the nature of something or it's properties. But the scientific method is about studying the materialistic reality we can experiment on, it manifests when conducting experiments, we take information and observations, and put opinions aside. It's goal is to learn the nature of the subject being studied after making conclusions.
The point is: The scientific method is not the basis of thinking. It is a method to think after information and knowledge is acquired with observation.

Now we come to weak atheism. It have no positive existence at all. Skepticism takes a negative skeptic stand at any scientific truth without differentiating between previous knowledge necessary for any scientific method, and opinions which are excluded in any mental process. Weak atheism refuses any unproved truth blatantly, and at the same time, they keep repeating the term: "Relative truth". How can they demand knowledge of absolute truth when they doubt the principle of their atheism? There are hundreds of unexplained phenomena. Yet, industrial application and technological advancement that came from previously unexplained phenomena keeps coming. Imagine if they used skepticism too rather than trying to reach an answer.



If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,would it? -Albert Einstein

There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism. -Nietzche
Citrakayah

Con

Firstly, I would like to give the conduct point to my opponent. I forfeited a round, and thus forfeit conduct at the very least.

1. My opponent seems to misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing that if God changes reality in order to hide the evidence, he isn't God. I'm arguing that since any reality warper is capable of insuring that it cannot be discovered, we cannot ever know whether or not a reality warper exists.

It's certainly rue that we cannot disprove that life is nothing but a dream. But our senses pretty much universally indicate that it is not, and if we behave like it is dream we risk a great deal (before someone thinks of Pascal's Wager, I would point out the flaw in that argument is that many deities have commandments that contradict each other).

We have evidence of fire. We have evidence that you shouldn't stick one's hand in fire. We do not have the same evidence of deities.

2. I base morality off the fact that I see morality as saying what we should do. I then determine that it would be in our best interests to do what we find most pleasurable, and that there is no fundamental difference between me and any other person that somehow makes me more important than them. At that point I reach act-preference utilitarianism.

As far as the probability that this world is random--well, that would be pretty difficult to say, since we don't really have a sample size.

While it's true that weak atheism does refute the concept of knowing about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, we have fairly little evidence either way. We do not have our senses, and we do not have scientific evidence. All we have is faith.

And faith is not something weak atheists set much store in.



I thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
Maybe he got it from your round two opening statement? I don't know, it (the vote) seems a bit questionable.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
Misterscruffles. May I ask how that contradicts with what I argued about?
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
Oops... You should make sure you keep all debates attended.

Anyway, I won't write much in the last round. You may write as much as you need.
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
How the bloody hell did that happen? Could have sworn I had enough time...
Posted by khatchapuri 3 years ago
khatchapuri
No irritation at all; these are good discussions. Yes, I'd have to agree that "agnostic atheist" sounds cooler. It's the alliteration. Gets me every time.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
There can be many types of atheist in different aspects, this is simply my attempt at coining the term. However, I learned that the correct term is: "Soft atheist". It is my fault, so I apologize if it irritated you.

But hey... At least agnostic atheist looks cooler than soft atheist...
Posted by khatchapuri 3 years ago
khatchapuri
I do follow the rigid rationality with which you are appraising the term "agnostic atheist." To respond to rjacobson, where Agnosticism may be compatible with Atheism, Atheism would not be compatible with Agnosticism. An Atheist claims knowledge to "unknowable" Truths, and is therefore just as empirically flawed as any religious view. HOWEVER, I believe it is important to allow terms such as "agnostic atheism" to allow for realistic descriptions of true beliefs. While agnosticism might be the most philosophically responsible position (as it does not claim to understand such mysteries as the universe), I do believe atheism is the philosophy toward which most objective people are inclined. Adding the "agnostic" part in there is the equivalent is saying, "Hey, given the information we have, I can feel comfortable believing God does not exist. However, I recognize the possibility that I might be wrong, and am flexible enough to reappraise my belief system on a regular basis."

Essentially, allowing a broader definition of "atheist" to include an understanding of "agnostic atheist" prevents strong-arming people into a false...trichotomy which demands a more rigid definition of belief. This mold leads to more insular opinions. Escaping it creates a dialectic, with more room for people to accurately express their true beliefs. Which is very good.

Understood this way, I'd classify myself as an agnostic atheist.
Posted by rjacobson 3 years ago
rjacobson
I am assuming I do not understand your debate.

Agnostic- Cannot be known with certainty
Atheist- Believes there is no God

Technically agnosticism is true with just about everything, but that does not stop us from believing in things. Most of us believe in gravity due to overwhelming evidence, but it cannot be known if it is true for certain.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
Then a revolution shall start.
Err...

I mean you should share your definition.
I am not a dictator so I would close the comment section, but I shall arrest anyone who use it.
Posted by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
And what if I disagree with the definitions?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
DragonfangCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for a one round FF. Arguments to con, as pros argument ignores the existence of weak atheists who merely state that they don't have enough information to come to an informed conclusion, or who have a POV different than the one he ascribed to "weak atheists".