Instigator / Pro
0
1282
rating
57
debates
13.16%
won
Topic

Being agnostic is more logical than being atheist

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
3

With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ragnar
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
3
1760
rating
34
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 478 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Pro
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?

Con
Definitions:
From Merriam-Webster
  • Logical is “capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion.”
 
Argument:
             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.

Analogy:
             Let us consider for deities the Justice League of America (JLA), whom reportedly every day save our world from destruction at the hands of the Legion of Doom. The believer points to their movie. The atheist redirects to the cast list to remind us they’re just actors, which is proven by them appearing in many other films. To remain agnostic is to disregard the evidence and insist against evidence on an illogical maybe.
Round 2
Pro
"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

Con
Typo:
           Thank you for catching the typo. Agonism was meant to be Agnosism.
 
Defending Use of Analogy:
           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?
The believer is the side affirming the existence of deities. To which an agnostic insists on using a middle ground fallacy instead of valid reasoning.
 
Will you please show a source where it defines it as such?
While the agnostic position for the JLA could not be maintained, here are the requested definitions from Merriam-Webster:
  • 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:
           This will cover the requested basis of evidence, showing why logic favors disbelief.
           Absence of Evidence is indeed evidence (not to say outright proof) of absence. Santa is a topical example to which any audience member can check, since were he to deliver presents under every Christmas Tree on Christmas Eve, there would be monumental evidence (the gifts and/or coal in question, reindeer tracks on every roof plus associated damage, etc.). When the evidence for Santa fails to materialize, it is strong evidence against his existence.
           This also applies to the JLA and any other deities. Lack of anything to suggest they do exist, implies they do not.
           Further, religions have claimed hundreds of times when the world will end. Us being here, gives us strong absence of promised evidence. To remain agnostic about those faiths (not to mention if the world ended or not), does not stem from applying any logical formulations but rather deep stubbornness.
Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Absence of Evidence (continued):
             As my opponent just demonstrated, when nothing is offered it fails to support the affirmative case. Nothing also does not support the fallacies middle ground, as the middle ground is only valid when there is an affirmative case to be had. Nothing, much like a forfeiture, ends up supporting the negative.

Round 4
Pro

"Absence of Evidence (continued):
             As my opponent just demonstrated, when nothing is offered it fails to support the affirmative case. Nothing also does not support the fallacies middle ground, as the middle ground is only valid when there is an affirmative case to be had. Nothing, much like a forfeiture, ends up supporting the negative."

I don't understand what you're attempting to get across here. The absence of my response is not evidence that I don't have one. Hence I have one here.

"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."

The topic is,"It's more logical to be agnostic than to be atheist". Does an agnostic have a belief in deities? Does an atheist have one? So sticking to what the topic is actually saying, why would I offer any deities? The topic is dealing with the two distinct positions and their basis for where they stand. One deals with neutrality due to no evidence on either side while the other takes one side as being a sufficient sound basis. Resting on the argument of ignorance, silence and incredulity is typical for the atheist side. What does this mean "humor an agnostic side for any deity"? Fictional characters you mentioned, as I've said, everybody in their right mind knows that a film or movie isn't real. How does it relate to an agnostic or atheist position? Anybody and that means anybody that knows better has been given proof that a movie is fictitious in and of itself. An atheist however has not be given proof for the existence of a deity. An agnostic has not been given proof for the existence or non-existence of a deity. See both of these positions are looking for specific things and these are in different contexts than this context of a motion picture so the analogy fails.


"The believer is the side affirming the existence of deities. To which an agnostic insists on using a middle ground fallacy instead of valid reasoning."

Believer as in theist, is that right? That's not what the topic is about. An agnostic does not compromise with both sides. That's what the middle ground fallacy is but it's not the agnostic position. You fail to understand what the position is but we'll go over what the position is in the context of this discussion which was pointed out in the beginning .

"Merriam-Webster:
Agnostic is "a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something."
Agnosticism is "an attitude of doubt or uncertainty about something." "

So your source is Merriam-Webster. My source was google and Wikipedia which was expressed in the first round. It appears your not dealing with the context in which I've laid out. The agnostic position is about believing that nothing is known or cannot be known about the existence of a deity. The additional definition is the position not taking the commitment to the belief or disbelief in the existence of a deity. So this goes back to the first round mentioning neutrality. 

  "Absence of Evidence is indeed evidence (not to say outright proof) of absence." Valid but not always true in every case. I'll provide an excellent illustration shortly. In regards to the Santa Claus depiction, the absence of evidence or the absence of his presence can be a start to proving his non-existence. However Santa Claus is ultimately dis-proven based on the claim it's based on. Santa Claus did not bring toys down the chimney because the parents have the receipts to show that they've purchased the items. It's also been proven how the idea of Santa Claus, the tree and everything else is tied into this commercial scheme of buying and giving.

"This also applies to the JLA and any other deities." These are all fictitious , commercialized arenas that we know about, different story altogether. We know they're aren't real. I don't see any debates about the existence of batman.
"Lack of anything to suggest they do exist, implies they do not." The keyword is "implies" meaning to suggest, presume, assume, suppose, presuppose, think and believe. Like believing a deity doesn't exist. When there's no evidence for an existence, it'll show as if something to be the case as in make appear that it doesn't. Going back to talking about buying things and receipts,that illustration was about proof of an action. Now because I don't happen to have proof of purchase, a receipt, my lack of evidence is not the absence of me buying the merchandise. 

"Further, religions have claimed hundreds of times when the world will end. Us being here, gives us strong absence of promised evidence. To remain agnostic about those faiths (not to mention if the world ended or not), does not stem from applying any logical formulations but rather deep stubbornness."

I don't think we were ever promised evidence although that it may be evidence to many for the event to actually happen. As you've stated, it was a "claim" and not a fact. How does logic not apply from an agnostic position? There's no absolute evidence either way about the existence or non-existence for a deity or about the last days on earth so therefore an agnostic doesn't sway either way because the evidence doesn't sway either way. There isn't more evidence for one side because the other can build just as strong a case. How is that not more of a logical stance? It's being more fair, more equitable with the reality of what we know and what we don't. 
Con
Deities Which Potentially Exist:
               When requested, my opponent name could name none that should not be dismissed as mere "fictional characters," often "tied into this commercial scheme of buying and giving." He doubled down by proclaiming what I described as "any other deities" to be "these are all fictitious, ... We know they're aren't real." This is a firm continuance and expansion upon of his near concession from R2 (not to mention, a well excited bandwagon appeal against his own case).
                As a reminder, his burden of proof is to show that the stance of not disregarding such beings is the most logical, but instead has built up evidence for why they should all be disbelieved.


Moving the Goalpost:
My source was google and Wikipedia which was expressed in the first round.
Judges, please do a word search for those two terms. If either term was used prior to the fourth round (quotations and/or links) as my opponent claims, I concede the debate.
                Otherwise my opponent is opting to play make believe about his lack of a case, and hoping the audience is gullible enough to disbelieve their own eyes. Which I suppose is the logic of the agnostic case (as laid out in the rest of pro's), that the audience should assume those citations might be there despite the strong evidence to the contrary provided by their complete absence.
               PS: If anyone has a better label for this reinventionist tactic, please let me know.


Conclusion:
               I believe my case for evidence stands without sufficient refutation, and I will not repeat it ad nauseam.
               If ignoring evidence and treating forfeiture as equal to a case is more logical, than my opponent wins. Otherwise, he has failed to adequately support the case to which he holds the greater burden of proof.