The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

babies are born agonistic, not 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 6 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 58502
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

babies are born agnostic, not atheist.

as they grow into awareness, they do not accept or reject the idea of a God. just as they do not accept or reject the idea of a unicorn or flying spaghetti monster.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I accept.

Definitions:
Agnostic- A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheist- A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
According to Oxford English Dictionaries

Good luck to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con just gave definitions. i dont see why he didn't just start arguing to begin with.

the definitions prove my point. the second defintionshows that the agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelief in God. babies don't either, nor as tehy grow into awareness.

con's definitio of atheist is a poor one, if hetries to argue that it says 'lacks belief' in God so therefor they are atheist. agnostics lack faith in God too. that doesn't mean they are atheists. atheists reject the notion of God, at least to some degree. for that reaosn, babies growing into awareness are not atheist.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

First round acceptance is usually standard in site debates. This should be pretty easy though, since the definitions are pretty clear.

An agnostic holds the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of god. Babies hold no opinions at all on matters such as this, and it is clear that they lack a belief in this area. Babies are incapable of reaching a conclusion to support a belief like this, and are incapable of being agnostic, since it requires the belief of something. Babies cannot believe something this complex at birth.

The lack of belief is natural to babies. At birth we don't come out believing in god, certain political ideals, or different economic policies. Babies fit the definition of Atheist.

I'll now address my opponent's points:
"the definitions prove my point. the second defintionshows that the agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelief in God. babies don't either, nor as tehy grow into awareness."
Actually agnostics believe that nothing can be known about the existence of god. Since babies are incapable of such a belief, babies aren't agnostics.

"con's definitio of atheist is a poor one, if hetries to argue that it says 'lacks belief' in God so therefor they are atheist. agnostics lack faith in God too. that doesn't mean they are atheists. atheists reject the notion of God, at least to some degree. for that reaosn, babies growing into awareness are not atheist."
My opponent is misinformed. The majority of atheists lack a belief in god, not make the positive statement that god doesn't exist. The vast majority of atheists define themselves as negative atheists as opposed to positive atheists. Either way, both fall under the category of atheism.
"Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none."
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is mostly engaging in semantics, because he is picking and choosing which definitions he wants to use. and hten acting like just because he cited the dictionary he should automatically win. i did and will find more definitions that fit me.
and it is common knolwege that there are usually more than one defiition to words. in this case, agnostic was shown to mean nt having faith or disbelief in God. accordin to that definition, htey are agnostic.

do notice the play on words here. agnostic says 'doesn't disbelief' and the definition of atheist is 'disbelieves'. 'disbelives' is vague enough to mean no belief, but it could also mean rejection depending on context. to make the concepts different, agnosticism and atheism, atheism must involve some form of rejection, as i cite a dictionary later that says this.

if we follow the definitions that con gave us, the babies would fit both the definition of agnostic and the definition of atheist. the only way to be consistent is to note that the atheist definition shows 'disbelieves' a proactive disbelief. babies don't do that.

this all square with teh common sense definitions i gave at the begining of the debate. agnostic means no belief, atheist means proactive disbelief.

and you can find definitions to support my atheist point. websters dictionary says "the doctine that there is no God" as its first definition. its otehr definitinos are pretty much a different way of saying that same thing.

con is misinformed about atheists. they do more than lack faith in God, they think that God does not exist. there are varying degrees of disbeief, as con noted psotive and negative athists, or i better term them soft and hard. but they are forms of disbelief. 'lack of faith' is misleading, as that more properly fits agnostic.
and "does not believe in the existence of deities" to make any sense must mean they have disbelief, they have some sort of proactive disbelief. they might not say God does nt exist, but they have no reason to think he does. i do not believe believe in unicorns. i can't say they don't exist, but i've seen no evidence for them. when i say 'i do not believe', i am implying i have a proactive rejection, i dont believe it until i see it. that isn't to say i'm a hard unicorn deniers. i don't think it' absotuey true they don't exist.

as wikipedia said elsewhere "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

the only way for con's psotion to make sense would be to make agnosticism and atheism be the same thing. he's picking and choosing parts of definitions, and definitions in general, that make the distinctions between the two concepts pointless.

con also resorts to these semantical quibbles about agnostic too. his own definitions showed in the first definition that they have no belief OR believe that nothing can be known. that means the first one is possible too. plus he just ignores tha the second definitino fits me better. no faith no disbelief in God is agnostiism.
i can find definitions for agnostic in dictioaries that better fit my view on this too.

it's a sad state of affairs that con wanted to make this into a circus game of semantics and defintions, especially when his goes against common sense and common understanding.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Pro lacks a general understanding of the words atheist and agnostic. She contests my definitions and proposes her own. "websters dictionary says "the doctine that there is no God". This doesn't support my opponent's side at all. No atheist believes in god, but for different reasons. Positive atheists make the affirmitive statement that god does not exist. Negative atheists lack the belief in god. Babies would fall under the category of negative atheist.

"if we follow the definitions that con gave us, the babies would fit both the definition of agnostic and the definition of atheist. the only way to be consistent is to note that the atheist definition shows 'disbelieves' a proactive disbelief. babies don't do that."
Nowhere in either definition does it say that babies proactively disbelieve. Both definitions state that atheism is the position that there is no god, and again there is a difference between positive and negative atheists. Babies are negative atheists. Agnosticism however, requires that someone proactively believe that knowledge cannot be gained about the existence of gods. Pro's arguments are false and self-defeating, since agnosticism requires that the holder of the belief proactively believe in something very complex.

"con is misinformed about atheists. they do more than lack faith in God, they think that God does not exist. there are varying degrees of disbeief, as con noted psotive and negative athists, or i better term them soft and hard. but they are forms of disbelief. 'lack of faith' is misleading, as that more properly fits agnostic."
Both negative and positive atheism are forms of atheism, and agnosticism requires that the person actively believe that nothing can be known about the supernatural. Babies are negative atheists, not agnostics.
and "does not believe in the existence of deities" to make any sense must mean they have disbelief, they have some sort of proactive disbelief. they might not say God does nt exist, but they have no reason to think he does. i do not believe believe in unicorns. i can't say they don't exist, but i've seen no evidence for them. when i say 'i do not believe', i am implying i have a proactive rejection, i dont believe it until i see it. that isn't to say i'm a hard unicorn deniers. i don't think it' absotuey true they don't exist."
This is completely false. People don't believe in unicorns because of a lack of evidence, not evidence contradicting their existence. People take the position of negative atheist when it comes to unicorns. Not believing in something does not mean you make the affirmative statement, that something doesn't exist. People are negative atheists when it comes to unicorns, leprechauns, and Russel's Teapot. Babies are negative atheists.

Pro is misinterpreting the position of not believing in god with making the affirmitive statement that god doesn't exist. In reality I take the position god does not exist because their is a lack of evidence. The definitions are incredibly clear here.

Pro then says that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing which is false, but either way loses her the argument. Pro is affirming the resolution "babies are born agonistic, not atheist". That means if babies are born agnostic, and atheist, Pro has not fulfilled her BoP and I will win.

Babies are clearly atheists out of a lack of belief, and are not agnostics. A simple look at the definitions confirms this.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
You may wonder why non-believing parents would send their son to a Christian school.

That was the biggest regret of my life, I fought it with all my strength as I loved our public school and had a couple of love interests there and the Christian school was a boarding school so was to spend 8 weeks there at a time without seeing my parents or my love interests, I could only see them on a weekend every 8 weeks and school holidays. So I hated going.
But I had been getting into too much trouble at the public school for disobeying teachers and general wild behavior, nearly killed one child with a rock after he threw it at me first, but I was a better shot and clocked him straight in the head.
I knocked another student out with a single punch, as I had plenty of practice punching cows and bulls.
So they sent me for psychiatric tests, that was the worst thing they could have done.
I walked into the psychiatric center ignored, all the psychiatrists treated me like a leper.
Then my tests returned and my IQ was off their charts, suddenly all the psychiatrists wanted to be my friend. As it was the highest they had recorded there.
But, my parents decided to send me to a school for higher achievers, and since the Christian boarding school had a history of high achievement (fake I think) it was there they sent me at an exorbitant cost. It wasn't really worth it, so I never sent my children there.
It was the strictest school I'd ever seen. Ouch.
Spent more time bending over for the cane than learning it seems.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW: As a young child I had heard of the word God, and thought it was just something people yelled when they hit their thumb with a hammer or stub their big toe, so I copied them and it became a habit.
Something that did not go down too well in the Christian school.
Though it was better than the F-Word, so I don't know why they sent me to the bad corner or whipped my rear for saying it, I didn't know what blasphemy meant then.

:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
In my case, I went for most of my early life thinking I was agnostic, because from birth to the age of 8 I had no idea of what a God was, nor that there were anything such as spirits, ghosts or any other superstitions rot.
So I called myself agnostic as that is a word my teacher called those of us who didn't seem to know what a God was.
When I entered a library and consulted encyclopedias, I realized that the teacher, was wrong, because according to all the encyclopedias I opened, an agnostic was essentially a God Skeptic, an agnostic knows about God, but thinks God is something humans shouldn't be bothered with, because it is beyond human understanding and essentially ignores us as well. Which was only a few degrees away from Deism, or believing God started everything and disappeared to look after another universe and won't be coming back.

So I was confused, what was I during the first 8 years of my life?
Since I lived on a farm in sort of isolation, I never really knew what a church was, except a lot of people went there and sang stupid songs when people either died or got married, but we children were kept out of the actual events so only knew it as some form of hoorah for dying and marrying.
Sometimes my mother would go to church to meet her friends as in the country churches are the only social gathering in town.
What could I call myself.
Then I came across a term while researching Agnosticism called Atheist.

So I looked it up and well, there it was, Lacking a belief in God or Atheos (Greek) meaning "Without God" or Godless.
Yes, as a child I was Godless, without any idea of God, so I was without a God in my life, thus Atheist is what I was.
Finally I found a word to describe to the other children my beliefs category during the first 8 years of farm life.
I was really happy that day.
So I blurted it out to all my friends, but since I was in a Christian school, it didn't go down too well with the principal, who gave me a caning.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i think it just boiled down to con being ignorant of the extent of the limitations of a lot of the limited definitions.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
even prominent atheist richard dawkins, and others, draw issue with most ideas of 'soft atheism'

"Under this positive/negative classification, some agnostics would qualify as negative atheists. The validity of this categorization is disputed, however, and a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it. In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.[5]"
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
per hard, soft, implicit, explicit, negative, positive, etc, there are various definitions. just as their are with the words themselves, without the qualifiers.

if con wanted to approach it the way he is, he'd have to not pick and choose parts of definitions, and which definitions, but to say babies are both agnostic and atheist.

that doesn't do justisce to them being distinct ideas, though, and doesn't do justice to the commonly accepted notions of the words (no belief, active disbelief), but it's the only alternative way to approach it than calling them agnostics.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
You are not approaching it the commonly accepted way, you are using your own ignorance of the terms as justification for your arguments. The commonly accepted way is that atheists don't believe in god. The two forms of this are lacking belief (negative) or affirming disbelief (positive). Both are understood to be atheists. Agnostics believe nothing can be known about the existence of god. The definitions are clear. I seriously recommend you read this webpage to help you understand the terms a little better.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
they are not necessarily exclusive depending on how you define them.

but if you want to approach them as distinct ideas, you have to approach it the commonly accepted way, which i did.

otherwise you're picking and choosing definitions, and parts of definitions, just to make a point, while at the same time, rendering the distinctions between the two concepts, meaningless.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Pro affirmed the resolution "babies are born agnostic, not atheist" which means that she had to differentiate between them to win. Anything else results in a Con victory.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Atheist and agnostic are not exclusive. You don't need to differentiate them.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G goes to con as pro never bothered to capitalize the starts of sentences. Arguments go to con, as con makes an excellent point about negative atheism, but pro just rejects it as semantics. Sources go to pro for using a better source (pro used websters, con used wikipedia), Pro gets conduct as con behaved somewhat "shouty" in the last round, and is somewhat guilty of semantics in a few cases, but the semantics were not major enough to affect the arguments score.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Con obviously had better spelling and grammar, points to him. Pro was pretty much screwed when she didn't give her definitions and let Con lay down the definitions. The debate was over when Pro accepted Con's definition and Pro just kept on fixing the definition she just accepted. Arguments and sources goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to give sources for their argument. Pro operated on belief alone and did not cite a source, there are sources on Pro's side so I don't know why they were not used, having an argument that is backed up by sources made Con's the stronger argument, had Pro done the same, it may very well have gone Pro's way. Sources help strengthen an argument, if used well.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is cherry picking definitions and leaves out clear and clarion examples of agnostic in order to confuse the obvious: ag?nos?tic noun \ag-ˈn?s-tik, əg-: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something Atheists are people who think there is NO GOD, and the comporting of the stances from IDK and NO and attempting to reverse them is a game of semantics - cherry picking definitions makes the entire thing a fallacy - the Texas Sharpshooter.
Vote Placed by jack.robbins90 2 years ago
jack.robbins90
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: PRO simply argued against CON's definitions instead of explaining why one definition is superior to another. PRO also made unsupported claims. Since PRO had the BoP, arguments to CON. S&G for PRO's lack of capitalization.