agnostic beats atheist
Debate Rounds (3)
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
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.
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
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
am i wearing a hat right now?
atheism is false, doubt, agnostic is true, certain
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:
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."
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.