The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Athiesm is the same as Agnosticism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,362 times Debate No: 22092
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (6)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Is this even possible?


Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,—are unknown or unknowable for epistemological reason

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Somebody that doesn't believe in Gods.






First round is acceptence!
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept. Since I'm Con, I will be arguing that atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.

I really don't know how you're going to manage this one, TheFool, because you just defined both terms and they are clearly not the same thing.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro



Private Fool at your service


Agnostics


Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god.


You can’t have a belief in not-god because not-god does not existence. Therefore it’s only possible we believe in god. Or I don’t believe in god.


Therefore they don’t believe in god.


Atheist


Atheist do not belief if god or such deities.


However the atheist does not believe in god because there is no sufficient reason too.


But this is also as epistemological reason!



Therefore they both don’t believe in god and they are both epistemological reasons. They end up being logical equivalent anyways.


I believe


Positive belief synonymous ‘I belief that P is true’


A subjective feeling of inclination that P is true


I have faith that p true


I expect that p true


I trust that p true


I have confidence that P true


I do not believe


Negation of belief synonyms “I do not belief that p is true.”


A lack of subjective feeling of inclination that P is true


I expect that ~p is true


Or


I don’t expect that p is true.


The Fool: There are some redundant variations but I am tired .lol


The master of Fools is the master of logic!


~E(p) = E(~p) ~E(p)<-> E(~p)


E(P) mean p is within a framework of E P is something which is believed in.



Relative negation: (relative negations can have opposite)


Expectation=E the expected= X


Mathematical proof Logical proof



  1. -1(E)(x)= -Ex ~E(x)-> ~Ex

  2. 1(E)(~x)= -Ex E(~x)-> ~Ex


That is they are all logically equivalent.



Absolute negation: (cannot have opposites)


Because God is supposed to be an absolute entity, it’s really this, but I didn’t want make is confusing.


Mathematical proof Logical proof



  1. 0*E(x)=0 ~E(x)->0

  2. E(0*x)=0 E(~x)->0


That is they are all logically equivalent


That is to not believe in the existence of god is synonymous with believing that god does not exist.


Understanding relative vs absolute:


A relate opposite can be HOT and COLD but they are only relative opposites of an average temperature.


We could explain them as absolutes in that HOT is its own positive sensation and COLD is its own unique positive sensation. The both become painful the stronger they become. Thus we have the absolute value. And the opposites are non-existence. For in an absolute framework hot is not the opposite of cold. No sensations are the opposite what is the non-existence of them.


Another is example is direction. We may to east is +X and to west is –X relative to a point of origin.


e.g. As in let’s say we travel 5 miles east and then 5 miles west, we will have traveled 0 miles relative to the point of origin. The absolute value, in this case, give us the absolute distance traveled we take (5 East)+ (5 West )to get an absolute distance 10 miles travelled all together. (Absolutely)


There you have it!


There is no logical difference between them after all!


More original philosophy from your favourite Fool!


You heard it here first, straight from the hill!



Vote Freshness vote for Fool!


DakotaKrafick

Con

Vote freshness, vote for Fool, eh? Well, wait a minute, don't you think you should be saving that line until I've at least offered my first rebuttal? Anyway...

My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round. Allow me to explain the difference as clearly as I can.

Theism and Atheism

Theism and atheism are ontological stances (concerning belief). If one believes a deity exists, then he/she is a theist. Otherwise, he/she is an atheist. Neither theism nor atheism require an assertion of absolute certainty.

For instance, I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe, but I cannot know for certain and don't assert that this is absolutely the case. Despite the fact that I don't assert 100 percent certainty, though, I still believe extraterrestrial life exists. Only when life is discovered on another planet will I assert 100 percent certainty.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism

Gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances (concerning knowledge). If one believes absolute certainty can be obtained about a particular phenomena (such as the existence of extraterrestrial life or God), then he/she is a gnostic. Otherwise, he/she is an agnostic.

Mutual Exclusiveness

Both of the ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, and both of the epistemological stances are mutually exclusive of each other as well. This means one cannot be both a theist and an atheist, nor can one be both a gnostic and an agnostic (concerning the same phenomena).


However, the ontological stances are not mutually exclusive of the epistemological stances. This means one can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist (in fact, one must be one of those four), depending on how they answer the following two questions:

1. "Do you believe a deity exists?" (YES: theist, NO: atheist)
2. "Do you believe it can be known for certain whether or not a deity exists?" (YES: gnostic, NO: agnostic)

My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."

This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. Again, I believe it's impossible to know for certain whether or not extraterrestrial life exists (that would make me an agnostic on the subject), but I do believe they do. Similarly, a theist can believe in God without asserting 100 percent certainty.

Conclusion

I believe I have thoroughly shown the difference between agnosticism and atheism. TheFool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


The dictator!


Cons suggestion of a type of systematic organization about how we should go about understanding agnostics and atheism is something to be considered. If it is not suggestion, it is an attempt to dictate something into truth. However the fact of the matter is that it’s still at best an idiosyncratic version that does not represent the majority of the way Atheist and Agnostic have or do now identify themselves. For the one thing we could never be wrong about is our own thoughts, they are exclusive to us and us only. Therefore Cons explanation should not be taken any more seriously than any fundamentalist or dogmatic assertions then somebody who goes around telling you what you are, what are your beliefs and what your position is. For one bold assertion is as good as the next.



To be The Fool or not To Be The Fool. That is the question?


Ontology is a philosophical study about existences in general. Not about particular existences in themselves. Under Cons interpretation, every claim becomes ontological, especially, every truth or falsity of something. For to say something particular is false is synonymous to saying that truth of some particular thing does not exist. Similarly to claim anything false would be to claim that it doesn’t exist that it is true. Secondly under Cons interpretation even agnostic claims are all ontological. According to Con they are claiming that certainty of such knowledge does not exist which thus must be taken as ontological. In the general interpretation agnosticism which is the claim that such knowledge is not possible is synonymous with saying that such knowledge is non-existent. That is Cons misinformed ontological understanding makes ontology so trivial to point of being completely useless.



Are you sure you are certain of that question?


It is still very alive and well to consider agnosticism as a middle ground. There is no ground for proofing or even suggesting that this interpretation is obsolete what so ever. (Bold Assertion Fallacy) Almost every interpretation searchable is this interpretation. To claim otherwise Con need to prove that most people in the word use that interpretation. Even philosophers are not infallible to a Semantic Fallacy. That is we define word to refer to another set of organized word. Language can only be used to describe reality not to define reality.


E.g. I am using my computer, I can define my computer as a HAT but low and behold, what I had been referring to as computer, is still a computer whether I define as something else or not. AKA you can’t ever define something into exist. So nothing is depended on cons definition but another set of words he uses to refer to it. If they don’t describe reality by symbolizing it, then his interpretation is false.


Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods. But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim, which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics. Most people know faith is not certain knowledge enough to not go around dictating to others about what they should believe. Most Religious people tend (in the world) to pick and choose what parts of the bible they like or agree with and discard the rest. People often define their own personal version of God.


Many people believe in God for the mere fact of having something to believe in. That is, simply for the therapeutic reasons. It often makes us feel better than thinking that life is a purposeless random accident. But by no means epistemological nor ontological. Therefore Cons personal idiosyncratic categorisation system fails to account for such forms of Theists. This is just another good reason for its rejection.


I am certainly uncertain that it’s a certain a question!??


Ad hominem fallacy


Con: “My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round.”


The Fool: Please don’t suppose I am ignorant until at least you have at least proved it first.


Ipse dixit fallacy


Con: “My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."”


F1. Con: This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity.


F2. Con: The Fool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro.


The Fool: Cons conclusions are based on his own unproven bold assertions.


Strawman fallacy


Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. http://en.wikipedia.org...


The Fool: Con claims my definition correct but at the same time he says that agnostic only means uncertainty of knowledge. But the definition states nothing about uncertainty in fact is says specifically unknown as in unknowable at all. That is NO TRUTH OR FALSE CLAIM AT ALL.


Mine is based off a source would represent the popular interpretation, So am more than justified in using this version that I have based my definition on. The very same one CON agreed to when the he accept the debate. And therefore those are the definitions we must work with.


And from these definitions I have proved them soundly that they are logical equivalents.


Any explanation other than comparing Agnostic and Atheism are superfluous to this debate at hand.


The bottom line is that there are quite a few theories buzzing around, with all kinds or strong, medium and weak variations. Therefore too accept Cons for this debate would be at best Special pleading.


The Fool has given sound proof from the definition given, his version is the most supported, and the one defined and accepted. Moreover many aspects of Cons explanation where shown inadequate and incomplete.


Don’t be Foolish, err I mean be Foolish, err I mean don’ t foolish. Umm I am confused, Just vote FOOL!! ;)


DakotaKrafick

Con

I have little motivation to type this, because whether TheFool is aware of it or not, she is ultimately debating herself. She defined two words with two different meanings, and has since been trying to convince the audience those two different meanings are really the same when they're patently not.

Agnosticism vs Atheism

TheFool is acting like I'm somehow putting forth unique definitions for these words, when really I'm using the same ones provided in the instigation.

Atheist: "Someone who doesn't believe in gods."
Agnostic: "Someone who believes the existence or non-existence of gods is unknown or unknowable."

Already, we can see TheFool was wrong to take Pro in this debate; those two definitions are not the same thing.

If we replace the words "gods" in these definitions with "aliens", it can be easier to see what these two terms mean. I believe the existence and non-existence of aliens is unknowable, because there is no evidence either way. That would make me an agnostic. But I believe aliens exist (not with 100 percent certainty, of course, but I still do believe). That would make me a theist.

Switching back the words, we can see how it's possible for one to be an agnostic theist: one who believes the existence or non-existence of gods are unknowable (because they're supernatural), but still believes a god exists.

Pro makes the insane assertion that in order to argue my definitions (which are really her definitions), I have to prove most people in the world in use those definitions. No, I don't have to do that. 1) These were the definitions provided in the instigation; I'm merely explaining them for you. 2) I'm not arguing what the definitions mean according to most people's misconceptions; I'm arguing what the definitions mean, period. A popular misconception is just that: popular. And a misconception.

Accusations

My "bold assertions" are nothing more than explanations of TheFool's own definitions.

TheFool states this: "Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods."

Yes, because it is, according to your own definition.

"But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim"

Yes, it does.

"which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics."

No, it doesn't. Some atheists are gnostic. They believe they know for 100 percent certainty that gods do not exist. Even some theists who say they base their belief in God on faith alone are gnostics. They believe faith is an accurate tool for understanding reality and claim to know for certain that God exists. I know, it doesn't make sense; but then, people don't make sense. I admit, all forms of gnosticism on this matter stem purely from ignorance, but gnostics do exist on both sides of the fence (atheists and theists). And the same can be said for agnostics; they exist on both sides of the fence as well.

Also, my "ad hominem" was not an ad hominem at all. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy committed when one asserts another is wrong due to a flaw in that person's character. For example: you're ignorant; therefore, you're wrong. What I said was, more or less, you're ignorant AND you're wrong, and here's why [...] However, I meant no offense by it. Ignorance is never a bad thing and can be easily remedied.

Conclusion

My opponent has taken the position that words A and B mean the same thing, then provided definitions A and B respectively. Those two definitions were not the same thing. Nothing else need be said, but I showed how my opponent's interpretations of those definitions were lacking and how they were not as similar as some people might think (of course, any difference at all would negate the resolution).

Don't be a Fool; vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
DakotaKrafick: No amount of "logical babble" can change a word's definition, especially when you already defined it in the instigation.

The Fool: A definition is a set of words which presuppose a set of ideas that we want to refer to by another word. . Different sets of words can be logical equivilent to complete other set of words. That is the proof at hand.

DakotaKrafick: Its a losing stategy to accuse "everyone" of being too unintelligent to understand your arguments.

The Fool: I never said everyone, I was giving and example of why logic may seem like babble 'to you.'

CreasonGenisis: As always. The Fool is relying on sheer novelty to argue.

The Fool: So I am not expecting to win the vote for debates as yet. I am testing original logical arguments. I stay away from internet supports as long much as I can. I am intresting winning a logical argument not the debate. People here are from many different backrounds. I don't expect them to know how Logic, math and definitions overlap. You need have specialization for that. I was talking to you and you only. And I think you got the point.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
A definition is a set of words which presuppose a set of ideas. that we want to refer to by another word. . Different sets of words can be logical equivilent to complete other set of words. That is the proof at hand. The fact that it appears as logical babble, means that you simply cannot tell the difference. Not that it doesn't make sense. (its called the paradox of ignorance.) It will always appear as incoherent if you don't have the conceptualizatoin to graps it. Just like when you start a new math. The later part of a math text book appears incoherent. But the beginnng is coherent. but as you learn through the text when you get to end it is now completly coherent. ;) AKA Paradox,

DakotaKrafick Translation:
Losing strategy: accuse everyone of being too unintelligent to understand your arguments.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Losing strategy: accuse everyone of being too unintelligent to understand your arguments.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The claim: definitions are not the same as Logical equivalence.

The Response:No amount of logical babble can change a word's definition, especially when you already defined it in the instigation.

A definition is a set of words which presuppose a set of ideas. that we want to refer to by another word. . Different sets of words can be logical equivilent to complete other set of words. That is the proof at hand. The fact that it appears as logical babble, means that you simply cannot tell the difference. Not that it doesn't make sense. (its called the paradox of ignorance.) It will always appear as incoherent if you don't have the conceptualizatoin to graps it. Just like when you start a new math. The later part of a math text book appears incoherent. But the beginnng is coherent. but as you learn through the text when you get to end it is now completly coherent. ;) AKA Paradox,
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Wow, wiploc wins by sheer indefatigability. Maybe if you send me a proposal I'll be inclined to invest that much energy in answering that kind of volume, but at this point I'm happy just saying I disagree.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Tarkovsky's chosen authority wrote:
: People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or : positive (or explicit or strong) atheists.

Just because I used Tarkovsky's own source against him, that doesn't mean that I endorse their mistakes.

- Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.
- Weak atheists are neither theists nor strong atheists. (They don't believe gods exist, but neither do they believe that gods don't exist. If you need a crude generalization, you can think of them as fence sitters.)
- Implicit atheists haven't made a decision on the matter. (Think of babies, people who've never heard of gods, people who lack the mental capacity to understand the issue even if they have heard of it.)
- Explicit atheists have decided that they don't believe in gods. (Think of me, as I was reading Haley's classic watch argument. He was so persuasive and logical that I expected to be a theist by the time I finished reading the essay, but I wasn't one yet.)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The claim: definitions are not the same as Logical equivalence.

The Response:No amount of logical babble can change a word's definition, especially when you already defined it in the instigation.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@No amount of logical babble can change a word's definition, especially when you already defined it in the instigation.
Ghetto University 101
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Tarkovsky wrote:
: I was offering the observed current trend in the atheistic attitude, not the true prescript of
: atheism.

First, you're wrong about the trend.

Second, you didn't mention trends. You didn't say anything remotely like, "It used to be that most atheists believed god doesn't exist, but now they've gone crackers and started asserting absolute unequivocal knowledge that god doesn't exist."
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Tarkovsky wrote:
: : "You were effectively asserting that the the definition you offered is the one true definition."
:
: Nope.

Yes, you said that atheism "Atheism unequivocally asserts definite knowledge that..." That doesn't leave room for alternatives.

: While you're at your http://www.urbandictionary.com...... look up the word "ubiquitous" as it might help
: make sense of things for you.

I went to your chosen dictionary, your stipulated authority. I didn't look up "ubiquitous," though. I guess I'm a screwup. I neglected to follow directions.

I looked up "atheist." Your chosen authority agrees with me, not you.

Here is there definition of Atheist:

====
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
====

So they give the two definitions that I gave you. They don't give your definition. Your definition is right out. According to your authority, I'm right and you're wrong.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: S&G is obvious. Pro gave different definitions, but undertook to prove they were the same. Her argumentation was dizzyingly confusing. I'm not even sure what her point was. Late in the debate, it occurred to me that her point might be that agnostics are a subset of atheists. But we can't tell. Pro was wild and incoherent. Con was lucid and cogent. Victory: Con.
Vote Placed by Idauntiles 5 years ago
Idauntiles
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Fool used math, which I thought was hilarious.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I must admit some bias, I really enjoy reading Dakota's debates. His well-written responses and subtle humor are, for me, enough of a reason to vote Con. That said, Con's argument isn't just fancy rhetoric, it's backed up with better logic and evidence.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave sources to Con since, as Con pointed out, Pro's own definitions defeated her at the outset. Spelling and grammar to Con. I have no idea why Pro even instituted this debate, but it was an easy victory for Con.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
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: Con clearly cut through pros interesting, yet barely coherent arguments, and proved their BOP
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
The_Fool_on_the_hillDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: As always. the Fool is relying on sheer novelty to argue. The fool defeated himself, as Con pointed out. Easy win for Con.