The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
The Contender
GodlessGourd
Con (against)

The agnostic position is the most rational position to hold.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mall has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2020 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 239 times Debate No: 124120
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

mall

Pro

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

The agnostic position is the middle ground position. It is a sole position that is absolutely neutral. It doesn't sway to one side or the either.

Now this discussion may result in a marathon of semantics. We can certainly take one term at a time. We can attempt to not gloss over any verbiage.

Please comment or send a message for clarity or questions before taking on the debate.
GodlessGourd

Con

The agnostic position in your word is "The middle ground position. It is a sole position that is absolutely neutral. It doesn't sway to one side or the either". To start, I am fully comfortable with the fact you can not prove a negative, For example "there is no easter bunny" can not be proven, And "there are no tap dancers on the surface of and unobserved planet" can not be proven (please don't be a smart *ss here, The example is not perfect).

premise1: atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. Theism is the belief in a deity. Agnosticism is the middle ground of theism and atheism. A deity is irrational, Therefore atheism is the most rational.

I feel it is necessary to demonstrate belief in a deity is irrational. Reason one the existence of a deity would provide strong evidence for itself, No such evidence has been found. Reason two just kidding believing in anything without proof is irrational.
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

You were on track, Then you fell off track.

"To start, I am fully comfortable with the fact you can not prove a negative, " Now what does this ultimately mean? A subject can't be disproven. Now let's keep that thought in mind.

"A deity is irrational, Therefore atheism is the most rational. "
I can see that deities are not constituted on a rational basis. Leaving atheism to be the opposite of that, Which is rational.

But agnosticism doesn't sway to belief or disbelief, Why? Due to that rational thought we've kept in mind of not being able to prove a negative. See there's no evidence for either side, So logically we'd be left in the middle for the conclusion of a supernatural or divine existence.

"I feel it is necessary to demonstrate belief in a deity is irrational. "
This statement does not make sense to me. It appears that it's communicating what you feel or your opinion.

"Reason one the existence of a deity would provide strong evidence for itself, " Do you have evidence for this statement to demonstrate that this would be true and is a requirement?
Would the deity require itself to provide strong evidence or is this a demand of yours to the deity?
GodlessGourd

Con

it's my first debate so bare with me.

" there's no evidence for either side"
theism states that the universe was created by a supernatural deity, And atheism states that we don't currently know the complete cause of the universe. It is not sensible to say that a guess and admitting you don't know are on equal grounds.

if agnosticism is the complet middle ground, And as you say " doesn't sway to belief or disbelief " than agnosticism is automatically less rational than atheism.
Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

"theism states that the universe was created by a supernatural deity, And atheism states that we don't currently know the complete cause of the universe. It is not sensible to say that a guess and admitting you don't know are on equal grounds. "

This segment is throwing things off in another direction. The definitions mentioned here for these terms, I don't use. The definition you're using for atheism actually is the definition of agnosticism. That's why I stated in the first round, The semantics could become an issue in this. We can work through it best we can. So yes "It is not sensible to say that a guess and admitting you don't know are on equal grounds. " But I apply that statement to the dichotomy between agnosticism and atheism/theism.

"than agnosticism is automatically less rational than atheism. "
How so? Agnosticism has to do with not knowing in which you say that's what atheism is and atheism is the most rational position.

So unpack all of that, Sort it out, Organize it, Explain, Take it away please.
GodlessGourd

Con

unfortunately I believe we might be at a stand still. The problem is this: atheism is the the lack of belief in a god, And theism is the belief in god. If agnosticism is as you said "absolutely neutral. It doesn't sway to one side or the either. " than it is less rational than atheism. If agnosticism is as you have recently said "not knowing" than you have switched definitions.

if you have switched terms than i think you can agree that not knowing is more logical than guessing. The problem here is atheism is not knowing how the universe was created. Agnosticism is not knowing whos right theist or atheist or deist.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
Just a quick defining of terms, Being agnostic only relates to the idea that you can't know if something exists or doesn't exist, Atheism relates to the lack of "belief" in a thing, These positions aren't dichotomous, You can be an agnostic atheist (you don't believe in god, But also don't think we can ever truly know whether they exist or not) or a gnostic atheist (you don't believe in god and think that we can know that they don't exist)
Posted by GodlessGourd 1 year ago
GodlessGourd
that's all fine and dandy but that doesn't change whether or not theism is true. It just show that humans would make up some irrational stuff to explain there world.
Posted by fauxlaw 1 year ago
fauxlaw
I have encountered a fascinating article on irrationality, To wit, Https://qz. Com/922924/humans-werent-designed-to-be-rational-and-we-are-better-thinkers-for-it/
which explains how irrationality [the opposite of rationality? ] allows us to make better decisions. I will not re-quote the entire article, But it is worth reading with respect to this debate because both debaters "rationalize" that of the three choices of philosophy, Theism, Agnosticism, And atheism, It is the first that is the most irrational. The argument of this article is that this makes theism the best human choice.
Posted by GodlessGourd 1 year ago
GodlessGourd
please define your agnosticism
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.