everybody is agnostic by default, no one is born insane
Debate Rounds (3)
ready to hear why i am wrong con
Humans, by nature, have the unique intelligence and critical thinking skills to solve problems.
Humans have solved many unsolved mysteries.
Human nature drives us to solve unsolved mysteries.
The human psyche is set out to find answers. Agnosticism is a stance that takes intense contemplation and is a conclusion based off of all the evidence that humans have compiled in their drive to come up with a conclusive answer. It is unlikely that if agnosticism were the default position that one, we would have all of our extensive information in the first place in both religious texts or scientific text to set out to find a definitive answer regarding our origin.
Some of these texts and research include but is not limited to:
The theory of evolution,
The Big Bang Theory,
The Bible, and The Quran.
Human nature by default has never "let unsolved mysteries remain unsolved". Even when tested at the earliest ages, likely the closest to test for a "default" characteristic of human nature, human nature consistently shows that it strives to answer questions and solve problems. Children are constantly being tested and having their boundaries redefined, and this is a critical concept in human development. Children must have, by default, expectations or beliefs regarding the laws of nature. They do not on the other hand, take a "maybe position".
As referenced by the Baillargeon study,
"In a recent series of experiments
(Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999), 2.5-month-old infants were habituated to a
toy mouse (""Minnie Mouse"") that moved back and forth along a track
whose center was hidden by a screen (see Fig. 1). The mouse disappeared
at one edge of the screen and, after an appropriate interval, reappeared at
the other edge. Following habituation, the infants saw two test events. In
one (high-window event), a window was created in the screen"s upper half;
the mouse was shorter than the bottom of the window and so did not become
visible when passing behind the screen. In the other event (two-screen
event), the entire midsection of the screen was removed, yielding two separate
screens. In this event, the mouse should have appeared in the gap between
the screens, but it did not in fact do so; the mouse disappeared
behind one screen and reappeared from behind the other screen without appearing
in the gap between them.
The infants looked reliably longer at the two-screen than at the high-window
test event. This result suggested that, when shown the two-screen event,
the infants (1) believed that the mouse continued to exist when behind one
of the screens, (2) realized that the mouse could not disappear behind one
screen and reappear from behind the other screen without traveling the distance
between them, and (3) expected the mouse to appear between the
screens and were surprised when it failed to do so. This interpretation
was supported by the results of a control experiment identical to that just
described with one exception: The screen or screens were lowered at the
start of each trial to reveal two identical mice. The infants in this control
experiment tended to look equally at the two-screen and high-window test
events. This negative result suggested that the infants were able to use the
information provided at the start of each trial to make sense of the twoscreen
event: That is, they realized that no mouse appeared in the gap between
the screens because one mouse traveled to the left and one to the right
of the gap." Cite: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu...
This proves that throughout the human lifespan, taking a decisive stance or belief, is a natural part of our psyche. It is also a part of human nature to either readjust our beliefs when confronted with conflicting information, or to find information to refute this conflicting information.
Humans by default will use information they have to give what they believe to be the correct answer, even if it is ultimately the wrong answer. Young children will be confused at first by conflicting information that goes against what they view the laws of nature to be, but they will continue trying to understand and learn. At no point in this study, however, do children by default say or take any action which suggests that they would let a physical event that goes against their understanding of the world remain unsolved. Human nature suggests that we are "programmed" to strive for understanding and search for answers.
Furthermore, if Agnosticism were the default position of all humans it would be reasonable to expect that at least the majority, if not all humans would be agnostic. However, as you can see by this pie chart in a poll conducted by Pew Research Center http://www.pewforum.org...
About 75% of the population is affiliated with some religion. This study lumps three categories together for the remaining 16 percent. Only 16% of the global population could be assumed to be either 1. Atheist, Non-religious, or agnostic. and of these three groups it is reasonable to assume that the majority would reference a scientific theory to explain their beliefs about the origin of man, and not take a "maybe position".
I believe I have proved my point, but I would like to introduce another example.
You could reference the fact that we are even having this debate, which by definition, is a contest of arguments to ultimately seek out a conclusive answer regarding whether Humans are born agnostic or not. Neither of us have conceded or chose to let this question go unanswered, and let it remain an unsolved mystery. We are both humans, and so we are both using our brains to argue our stances. In fact, if you look around this site, or in the world, you will see people constantly debating, arguing, and trying to answer those unanswered or disputed questions to the best of their abilities.
For all of these reasons I believe I have proved that Agnosticism is not the default position of humans, and in fact, Human nature seeks to come up with a conclusive answer or take a definitive position on unsolved mysteries or problems.
I look forward to the rest of this debate.
mistakes are necessary for one to learn
maybe the blue hat on my head is god
non existence represents existence for me to percieve of it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iTruthSeeker 8 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: I must admit.. I thought this debate would be more thought provoking in its nature.. Con did a great job actually taking the topic seriously.. I cant say the same for Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate