Being agnostic is more logical than being atheist
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
It's more logical or only logical to be neutral on the stance for the existence of a deity/deities. Whether one exists or not, It hasn't been proven either way.
What's your take?
"Disclaimer: Please, When accepting the challenge, You accept the premise, Subject, Topic as is. If there's any contention with the words, Definitions or disagreement with context, Please send a message first. The debate rounds are not meant to put your contentions or disputes about the topic in.
- Logical is “capable
of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion.”
It is easier to wave your hands in the air like you just don’t care, but to use logical inference is to care about having a conclusion supported by evidence. So agonism sidesteps applying logic, whereas atheism is dependent upon it.
So with it being established that logic is tied a basis of evidence, there's no basis of evidence for either side in this scenario. The agnostic position therefore can admit to why of not having knowledge of something. How does the agnostic position sidestep applying logic? There's no factual basis for either side so how can any be applied? Atheism depends on it yes for one side of the equation. So because of that the agnostic position is MORE logical because the position does not sway to either side on account of there being no basis of evidence for either side. By that, the position is neutral, balanced, fair, reasonable, logical, sensible. All these terms are synonymous.
The analogy given misapplies the terms in this topic." The believer points to their movie." Who or what is the believer supposed to represent? Agnosticism has to do with knowledge or not knowing. In this case about movies and the cast the way the example is presented, being an atheist or agnostic is irrelevant. Anyone regardless of who they are granted they're honest and straightforward will not deny the proof or documentation of the names of individuals portraying fictional characters. Nowhere in the agnostic position, it has the characteristic of disregarding evidence and insists against evidence. Will you please show a source where it defines it as such?
"Agonism" maybe a typo but is a different word altogether that's not a part of the discussion
Thank you for catching the typo. Agonism was meant to be Agnosism.
This topic is on the belief in deities. No other deities have been offered by my opponent, so I have used the JLA. With my opponent unable to humor an agnostic side for any deity, and instead outright detailing how stupid it would be to believe in fictional characters, this debate feels all but conceded.
Who or what is the believer supposed to represent?
Will you please show a source where it defines it as such?
- Agnostic is "a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something."
- Agnosticism is "an attitude of doubt or uncertainty about something."
"Absence of Evidence (continued):
My source was google and Wikipedia which was expressed in the first round.