The Instigator
spaztikenigma
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Atheism is better than Agnosticism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 28037
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

spaztikenigma

Pro

Atheism is better than Agnosticism because Atheism is based on scientific & logical reasoning. Agnosticism is not based on evidence, just feelings.
Danielle

Con

Pro challenged me to this debate, so I accepted.

I'd like to thank him and wish him the best of luck in this discussion. Since he hasn't provided any definitions to start, I'll post them here and he can feel free to challenge them if he deems necessary or would like to add on.

Atheism: the position that affirms the non-existence of a deity [1]

Agnosticism: the view that the truth value of certain claims - especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims - are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable [2]

My burden in this debate is to prove that agnosticism is of better or equal value to atheism, while Pro must prove that atheism is superior. Thus far, his sole contention in favor of the resolution is that atheism is based on scientific and logical reasoning, while agnosticism is based solely on feelings. To begin, I'd like to ask Pro to provide evidence that both of these claims are true. Indeed, I will be arguing that they are false; that agnosticism is not based solely on feelings, but a legitimate and perhaps preferable logical deduction.

First, I'd like to point out that there are for all intents and purposes logical and historical arguments in favor of theism. For example, apologetics like William Craig [3] and Alvin Plantinga [4] are some of the most well respected religious philosophers, both capable of making coherent arguments in favor of the existence of God that do not necessarily succumb to invalid reasoning. In fact, there are many well known and renound religious philosophers: Descartes, Anselm, Kierkegaard, and Rousseau to name a few. It's arrogant to assert (without explanation) that all religious arguments are illogical.

If you acknowledge that there are logical (or sensible) arguments in favor of theism in general - including some famous arguments, such as the Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, etc. - then agnosticism makes sense. While I'm sure most would agree that religions of all kinds have been convoluted and manipulated throughout the ages, there are still certain reasons to believe that a deity of some kind is possible and perhaps even logical.

Agonostism posits the notion that you don't know rather than you don't believe. There is nothing inherently inferior or superior about either of these positions. However, if I had to pick a superior stance, I would argue that a knowledge claim is more important. After all, of what use are beliefs if knowledge isn't used to help draw certain conclusions? Agnosticism doesn't assert theism. Rather, agnosticism acknowledges that there are too many unknowns to be certain, but that might not require an automatic dismissal of the idea of a deity, despite the way religion and religious ideals have been manipulated through the ages to describe or define what such a deity entails.

Back to Pro.

[1] Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism."
[2] Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism."
[3] Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament: Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lewiston, NY. Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.
[4] http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
spaztikenigma

Pro

spaztikenigma forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Please extend my arguments. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
"Where is the science that disproves a deity."

By it's definition, science can not disprove it. the "evidence" for it's existence is unfalsifiable when you reach a certain point. that's why it can't be used as evidence... it's unfalsifiable.

How do I know everything doesn't disappear when I close my eyes? I can't disprove that.

I could show it's wrong with a video camera... but then just change my theory to say it doesn't happen when I turn on the camera.

You can't "Prove" me wrong. Any proof you offer, I can change my theory to fit it.

When we showed that planetary orbits did not need a deity to work, that just showed that a deity was unnecessary... not that there was no deity moving the planets with his/her fingers etc...

Then the theory was because the deity designed it that way...

How do you disprove something that you cannot falsify??

You can't.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Good points, Regent, but I think there is merit to atheism as well (lol @ me helping the opposition in the comments section). Atheism simply means "lack of belief." It doesn't assert a knowledge stance of "God doesn't exist." Of course, I don't think one position is inherently better than the other, so this debate comes about belief claims vs. knowledge claims.
Posted by Regent 4 years ago
Regent
Before even reading the debate I can clearly, and confidently state that atheism is not based on any reasoning or scientific reasoning. Where is the science that disproves a deity? Science is a method of how we can understand the world, the universe around us. Wouldn't a deity exist outside all of that? Agnosticism is neither the belief or disbelief in a deity. I just to do so because it makes sense. There is no science/evidence for the existence or the nonexistence of a deity, and so unlike atheists (the polar opposite of the theists) who, just like the theists, claim to have the answer (when they really don't). Agnostics honestly throw up their hands and say "I don't know", which is really the one truth about Humanity. We don't know.
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
weird.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
spaztikenigmaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
spaztikenigmaDanielleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Args for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
spaztikenigmaDanielleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Impressive display of logical flare from Danielle, I'm proud of our Queen Santa, she makes me proud to be agnostic (although I already am). Anyways, in the miniscule arguments that Pro did make, there was little deduction I could find, they were severely flawed. After those Danielle shows what she has got and wins it, having them dropped by Pro in the following rounds. For now I give Dani args and Conduct cos of dropped args and FF, good job.