The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FlammableX
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

agnostic beats atheist

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 1 vote the winner is...
FlammableX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 84886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

theist=love
agnostic=joy
atheist=hate
FlammableX

Con

Thank you for accepting me to debate with you.

First, I would like to make it clear that as the Con side, I merely have to show that "agnostic" does not "beat" atheist. However, it is of a paramount importance that you provide evidence for your claim that "agnostic beats atheist."

It is also necessary that you show why
"theist=love
agnostic=joy
atheist=hate"

Being agnostic in any sense does not "beat" being atheist, because essentially agnostics state that they cannot know whether a supernatural being exists or not.

An "agnostic atheist", the default position of an atheist, states that they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. This is what I will refer to when I state "atheist." A Gnostic atheist is one who claims that they know for sure no god exists.

Being an agnostic does not beat being an atheist, anymore so than liking chocolate beats liking vanilla. There is simply no reason or evidence to see why being agnostic beats being an atheist.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

agnostic=maybe position=
agnostic=acceptance that i dont know

belief=not acceptance that i dont know
non belief=acceptance that i dont know

to say that i can not know wheather a supernatural being exists or not, is a belief, theism

theist=love=belief=yes position
atheist=hate=disbelief=no position
agnostic=joy=acceptance that i dont know=maybe position

there are only 3 positions on any imaginary claim

agnostic is the opposite of atheism and theism, there is no such position as maybe no god is real

default=agnostic

am i wearing a hat right now?

atheism is false, doubt, agnostic is true, certain
FlammableX

Con

The Pro side has failed to assert why theist=love and atheist=hate. Also, they asserted that "to say that i can not know wheather a supernatural being exists or not, is a belief, theism." However, this claim from the pro is easily falsifiable from the simple definition of theism: "the belief that God exists or that many gods exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).

What the pro side describes as agnosticism, that is, "that [one] can not know [whether] a supernatural being exists or not", is not theism. Stating that one cannot know whether a supernatural being exists does not imply that they believe in a god or many gods, as the definition of theism states.

Agnostic is not the opposite of atheism and theism ""opposite means "contrary to one another or to a thing specified" (Merriam Webster Dictionary). The opposite of theism is atheism ""by the definition. Agnosticism is not opposite to either of the two views.

The Pro side states that "atheism is false" ""however, this claim is not valid. Atheism is not a belief system, nor does it make a claim. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a supernatural being." A lack of a belief of something cannot be "false or true" by definition.

The pro also states that "agnostic is true, certain" ""which does not make very much sense. Agnostic is not certain by definition, in fact, it's the opposite.

The four types of splits between atheism and theism is as follows:
Gnostic Theism
Agnostic Theism
Gnostic Atheism
Agnostic Atheism

Each one has a very different meaning. What you describe as "agnostic" falls under the category of Gnostic theism """certain." However, this definition is not the definition of agnosticism.

The default position on any matter, without evidence, is one of a lack of belief. I lack a belief in flying unicorns until evidence for it is presented. I lack a belief that you are wearing a hat right now because no evidence has been presented. In other words, my stance would be one similar to an agnostic atheist " "not holding a belief in the existence of any deity, and they claim that the existence of a deity is unknowable in principle."

Thus, it cannot be said that "agnostic beats atheist."
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

belief=love

belief=theism=belief in god=be lie

"What the pro side describes as agnosticism, that is, "that [one] can not know [whether] a supernatural being exists or not", is not theism. Stating that one cannot know whether a supernatural being exists does not imply that they believe in a god or many gods, as the definition of theism states."
no one knows unknown

you can assert whatever you like

atheism is disbelief, belief to the contrary

non belief/lack of belief=agnostic

the disbelief position is the no position

as i said, there is no, maybe no god is not real position
FlammableX

Con

The Pro side first asserts that "belief=love." However, simple examples such as the Crusades and the Inquisition can easily show that is not always the case.

The Pro side then says that "atheism is disbelief." However, this is objectively incorrect. Atheism is not disbelief ""it is a lack of belief. The two have a very important distinction, which is explained nicely here: lackofbelief.com

"The default atheist position, which is held by the great majority of the atheist community, is that atheism is a "lack of belief". Obviously, this means that atheists do not have a belief in any gods. However, this does not imply that atheists believe no gods exist.

For many, this can sound very confusing. If someone told you that they read Santa Claus was coming to town, there are a few relevant positions to take:

I believe Santa is coming to town
I'm unconvinced that Santa is coming to town
That's wrong. I believe Santa is not coming to town

Both the first and third positions express explicit beliefs. However, the second position did not accept the person's belief that Santa was coming to town, thus lacks a positive belief about Santa coming to town. While the second position lacks a positive belief about Santa's arrival, it also lacks the opposite belief that Santa is not coming to town. A common response from someone taking the second position might be, "Don't believe everything you read! Maybe he's coming, but I haven't seen anything that would make me believe so." This is quite different from an example response from someone taking the third position, "I don't care what you read! Santa has never come to town before, and I certainly do not believe Santa is coming to town now."

This distinction is amplified by claims of knowledge. The equivalent claims to knowledge of the positions above make the issue a bit more clear:

I KNOW that Santa is coming to town
I don't know that Santa is coming to town
I KNOW that Santa is NOT coming to town

Now, both the first and third positions are making claims to knowledge. Atheists generally consider either of these claims, with respect to the existence of gods, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost during discussions between theists and atheists because most of the conversations consist of colloquial (informal) language as opposed to a technical, philosophical discussion which recognizes the epistemological differences between knowledge and belief.

This often leads theists, which frequently are making a positive claim to knowledge about the existence of gods, to ask a question in which an atheist replies coloquially, "There are no gods." Understandably, from the perspective of the theist, the atheist has just made a claim to knowledge which can then be followed by a theist's request for proof. However, because the atheist's true meaning was in the context of belief and not knowledge, a misunderstanding is created. When the atheist states that the burden of proof is on the theist and the atheist doesn't have anything to prove, the conversation declines. Because of the atheist's miscommunication, the theist now feels justified in their belief that the atheist is simply making claims to knowledge on faith, just like he/she is. On the other hand, the atheist gets increasingly frustrated that the theist does not understand where the burden of proof lies and feels justified in their belief that the theist is simply avoiding the question because they have no proof."

The Pro then states that "non belief/lack of belief" = agnostic. However, as I have stated in my previous argument, agnostic means that one claims they cannot know whether a supernatural being exists " therefore, it is not a "lack of belief".

The pro then asserts that "the disbelief position is the no position

as i said, there is no, maybe no god is not real position"

which still does not show why "agnosticism beats atheism." Thus, the pro side has failed to show why his claim has veracity the burden is on him, and thus the Con side wins.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Could someone please vote for this?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
maybe i am ;)
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
Vi_spex, I am starting to think you are agnostic.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i forgot to make a star*

my point is there is just maybe yes OR no
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Please explain what you mean by "maybe no god is not real."
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
maybe no god is not real
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
vi_spexFlammableXTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar go to Con considering the amount of Grammatical errors that he has committed in this debate is insurmountable. Sources also to Con considering that he is the only one who used sources in this debate. It was no doubt that when this debate started that BOP was on Pro and he had failed to uphold it. Though I could easily end the debate there I shall go further. Another instance is that Pro has dropped several of Con's arguments by "Stone-stepping" them. Furthering this Con showed the difference between something being true, possible, and/or false and this made a huge difference in this debate as it has shown that there can be a level of equality or the reversal of what Pro has argued. For this, I have no choice, but to vote Con.